RefSix

Laws of the Game Quiz - April

one

RefChat Addict
#1
Right. Here is my April quiz.

https://form.jotform.co/90762625531861

Same deal. You will see your score once you submit. If you put a correct email address in, all questions, your answers, correct answers and LOTG references are auto-emailed to you. Your email is not used for anything else but if you don't want to use your email and message me the name you used, I can message you back with the content of your quiz result.

Answers are discussed in the thread so best to do the quiz before reading the rest of the thread :).
 
Last edited:

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#2
90% this week. Goal with extra persons caught me out.
I feel that the 2 sections 7 and 9 of law 3 are at odds with each other. You can apply advantage if no interference by extra persons in section 7 but in section 9 where a goal is scored you have to stop play if an extra attacker was on the field, if they interfered or not. Makes no sense. Surely if there was no impact on the game then advantage could be applied?
 

socal lurker

Well-Known Member
#7
90% this week. Goal with extra persons caught me out.
I feel that the 2 sections 7 and 9 of law 3 are at odds with each other. You can apply advantage if no interference by extra persons in section 7 but in section 9 where a goal is scored you have to stop play if an extra attacker was on the field, if they interfered or not. Makes no sense. Surely if there was no impact on the game then advantage could be applied?
You can't possibly play advantage if the team that scored had an extra player on the field. Hardly advantageous to the other team to overlook the infraction!
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#8
You can't possibly play advantage if the team that scored had an extra player on the field. Hardly advantageous to the other team to overlook the infraction!
I don't disagree. Advantage was probably a poor word to use on my part as the laws of the game uses the term stop play but your point has helped me see why the answer I gave was obviously wrong . So my over riding point is still valid though, I think:
3.7 extra person, no interference, play on, deal with at next stoppage.
3.9 extra person for attacking team, no interference, a goal mandates stopping play to disallow goal and award defending team a dfk (potentially from an area presenting a goal scoring opportunity)
However if you award a penalty to the attacking side then play restarts with a penalty.
Edit: lets also remember both teams were committing an offence in the question...
 

one

RefChat Addict
#9
The overriding law here is law 10.1 (referenced in answers). A goal is scored.... provided no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal. The fact that the other team has also committed an offence does not nullify the assertion.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#11
The overriding law here is law 10.1 (referenced in answers). A goal is scored.... provided no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal. The fact that the other team has also committed an offence does not nullify the assertion.
I'm not disputing the answer. It's clear as day in the book. I just think the outcomes of the laws don't really add up.
Scenario: An away team player goes down injured in his own penalty area and the referee allows play to continue and the away team score a goal. The referee turns round to see a substitute has come on to the field of play to treat the injured away team player, without interfering with play.
Outcome: goal disallowed, penalty to home team and caution for away team sub.
However if in that very same scenario instead of scoring a goal the away team are awarded a penalty then the outcome is penalty to away team and caution for away team sub.
I just don't see how a goal should change the outcome of the same offence so drastically.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#12
I'm not disputing the answer. It's clear as day in the book. I just think the outcomes of the laws don't really add up.
Scenario: An away team player goes down injured in his own penalty area and the referee allows play to continue and the away team score a goal. The referee turns round to see a substitute has come on to the field of play to treat the injured away team player, without interfering with play.
Outcome: goal disallowed, penalty to home team and caution for away team sub.
However if in that very same scenario instead of scoring a goal the away team are awarded a penalty then the outcome is penalty to away team and caution for away team sub.
I just don't see how a goal should change the outcome of the same offence so drastically.
Completely agree. These odd scenarios for offences commit by non-payers are inconsistent and not entirely clear in the laws. Another example is when a temp. off the FOP player (or a sub) enters the FOP without interfering and the referee stops play because of it. I asked this from DE and posted the response here last year. He said the restart is "direct FK (as the referee has stopped the game then he/she has decided that there has been interference)"

Yet IFAB published below last week (point 2 contradicts his answer). There is no solid basis for either in the laws.

 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#13
@one , can you IM the answers, explanations to me?
Cancel that, i found the answers in my junk folder!
My junk folder has no respect for the LOTG :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

socal lurker

Well-Known Member
#14
I think the reason for DE's answer is that the ref isn't supposed to stop unless there is interference. And I think IFAB's is dealing with what if he does. (But I don't know why IFAB doesn't make that more clear.)
 
Top