LOTG Exam Question

[ARF]

even if you change it to scoring for his own team, the Laws don’t provide a reason to cancel the goal, so the player is sent off but the goal stands.

"If, after a goal is scored, the referee realises, before play restarts, that an extra person was on the field of play when the goal was scored, and that person interfered with play:
- the referee must disallow the goal if the extra person was:
- a player, substitute, substituted player, sent-off player or team official of the team that scored the goal; play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position of the extra person"

 

[RefereeX]

"If, after a goal is scored, the referee realises, before play restarts, that an extra person was on the field of play when the goal was scored, and that person interfered with play:
- the referee must disallow the goal if the extra person was:
- a player, substitute, substituted player, sent-off player or team official of the team that scored the goal; play is restarted with a direct free kick from the position of the extra person"

I don't think this is relevant though. It's not an extra person on the field of play, because that player was never dismissed from the field of play.

 

[ARF]

I don't think this is relevant though. It's not an extra person on the field of play, because that player was never dismissed from the field of play.

Said player shouldn't be on the FoP, having been cautioned twice. What else would you call that but 'extra'?

 

[RefereeX]

Said player shouldn't be on the FoP, having been cautioned twice. What else would you call that but 'extra'?

But he isn't dismissed from the field of play until he's red carded (for want of a better phrase and because I started the sentence using the word 'dismissed'. It's a referee error, but he is still a player at that point.
No different to a player who should have been dismissed for a deliberate handball on the goal line to stop a goal. He's also should not be on the field, but if the referee hasn't sent him off, then he is.

That section of law, in my opinion, is intended to refer to players who are on the FOP unbeknown to the referee, not those who are known to be there but are so in error.

 

[ARF]

That section of law, in my opinion, is intended to refer to players who are on the FOP unbeknown to the referee, not those who are known to be there but are so in error.

I'd be surprised if a player who shouldn't be on the FoP could get onto the FoP and interfere with play without the referee being aware of it!

Regardless, the referee has become aware that said player shouldn't be on the FoP after the goal has been scored, and before play restarts. Same logic as if advantage is played on a reckless tackle which will be the player's second caution - next time that player interferes with play, stop play and dismiss the player.

 

[RefereeX]

I'd be surprised if a player who shouldn't be on the FoP could get onto the FoP and interfere with play without the referee being aware of it!

Regardless, the referee has become aware that said player shouldn't be on the FoP after the goal has been scored, and before play restarts. Same logic as if advantage is played on a reckless tackle which will be the player's second caution - next time that player interferes with play, stop play and dismiss the player.

I’d be surprised if a referee failed to send someone off for 2 cautions but corrected his error later after being informed by a player, yet here we are debating it.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think this is what is meant by that section of law.

 

[socal lurker]

I'd be surprised if a player who shouldn't be on the FoP could get onto the FoP and interfere with play without the referee being aware of it!

Regardless, the referee has become aware that said player shouldn't be on the FoP after the goal has been scored, and before play restarts. Same logic as if advantage is played on a reckless tackle which will be the player's second caution - next time that player interferes with play, stop play and dismiss the player.

Well, sure. It’s a big problem. And one that can be addressed by a protest. But despite the two cautions, the player was not sent off. The Laws don’t provide a basis for cancelling the goal because this can’t happen unless the Laws have already been botched.

 

[one]

yes, B and C was goal given, it was a mistake made by me.

Only one is goal given and the other is not. Otherwise they are identical options.

Your Q does have an answer in Law. Once the goal was given and the match restarted, the R cannot change the erroneous decision and the goal stands.

Maybe you misread my example. First goal was NOT given. Play restarted. Second goal was given but play has not restarted. Also important to note that the laws don't refer to changing a decision, but changing a restart which has subtle differences. I don't think either of those change your argument though.

and even if you change it to scoring for his own team, the Laws don’t provide a reason to cancel the goal, so the player is sent off but the goal stands. But that diesn’t undo the fact the R made a protestable error. Disallowing the goal just means there have now been two protestable errors made, and either team can protest.

There is an argument for having the cake and eating it too here. In regards to sending the player off the law is somewhat on the other side which gives weight to @RefereeX 's argument that the player should stay.

 

[Cowboy Ref]

Either decision could be right or wrong at every angle you can look on it. Team A: Team A doesn't get the numerical advantage but after they would get it and they recived a goal because of that. Team B: Team B gets to keep their player for a bit but then they would concede a goal and anyways go down to 10. The unusual occurance of this situation can be puzzling.

 

[ARF]

There is an argument for having the cake and eating it too here. In regards to sending the player off the law is somewhat on the other side which gives weight to @RefereeX 's argument that the player should stay.

View attachment 8264

The sanction has already been issued though, it's not like there was a separate offence committed which the referee was unaware of.

Obviously there isn't a definitive answer to this in the Laws as IFAB don't feel it necessary to legislate for a referee making such a daft mistake (sorry GP!) but to me the least worst course of action would be allowing the goal (for the OP's own goal situation) or disallowing the goal (for @socal lurker 's goal situation) and removing the player as per Law 3.9. Anything else IMO would just be compounding your already sizable c*ck-up!

 

[Archer]

Option E) Do whatever the hell you want, cos it'll be the last match you officiate for a while anyway

Go out with a bang, stick one in the top corner.

 

[one]

The sanction has already been issued though, it's not like there was a separate offence committed which the referee was unaware of.

Obviously there isn't a definitive answer to this in the Laws as IFAB don't feel it necessary to legislate for a referee making such a daft mistake (sorry GP!) but to me the least worst course of action would be allowing the goal (for the OP's own goal situation) or disallowing the goal (for @socal lurker 's goal situation) and removing the player as per Law 3.9. Anything else IMO would just be compounding your already sizable c*ck-up!

While I agree with you in principle, we are talking laws of the game wording and my point is that it is not as clear as one might think.

What's clear is that a yellow card sanction is not the same as a red card sanction. So was a seding off sanction already issued just because it was a second yellow?

One can argue that they are separate sanctions (resulting from the same offence) and the red card sanction was missed and never issued.

 

[RefereeX]

The sanction has already been issued though, it's not like there was a separate offence committed which the referee was unaware of.

Obviously there isn't a definitive answer to this in the Laws as IFAB don't feel it necessary to legislate for a referee making such a daft mistake (sorry GP!) but to me the least worst course of action would be allowing the goal (for the OP's own goal situation) or disallowing the goal (for @socal lurker 's goal situation) and removing the player as per Law 3.9. Anything else IMO would just be compounding your already sizable c*ck-up!

Loving a hypothetical argument...
The sanction hasn't been issued.
Receiving 2 cautions in a game is a send off offence, but the player wasn't sent off due to error of the referee, similar to if somebody committed an act of violent conduct and wasn't sent off.
This is why we show a second yellow card and a red card when sending someone off. Without the red card, they aren't dismissed.

 

[vali1234]

Option E) Do whatever the hell you want, cos it'll be the last match you officiate for a while anyway

Go out with a bang, stick one in the top corner.

One joke that is popular among the referees who took the exam is option E) send off the referee