Player not on teamsheet

[JamesL]

Agree in general, but I assume what's happened is he's committed a YC offence (which we see in the video, stonewall yellow, don't know what the #3 has lost his head about at first!), the referee has gone to note the booking and then realised at that point the player isn't on the team sheet. Which arguably mandates another yellow for entering without permission?

I've refereed in leagues without team sheets, so it can't be the case that "being on the team sheet" is what defines you as a player. If he's been sent on and it hasn't been spotted by the AR or a team official at that point, he becomes a player when he steps onto the pitch - after which, if he's sent off then his team will play with a man down and the sub can't just be reversed.

For me, he's definitely a player. The question is, what constitutes "permission" to enter the FOP? The AR will have waved him on, but is that valid to do if he's not on the team sheet in the first place, or does that omission mean he can't ever properly have permission to enter during the game?

That is contrary to law.

"Anyone not named on the team list as
a player, substitute or team official is an outside agent"

It is clear from that statement we cannot treat this person as a player. And as such he should have been removed and the offending team should have been allowed to continue with 11 either by the player who left returning or the substitution procedure being completed properly with a named substitute entering the field of play.

I do wonder how this happened? Was it just an omission or did they have one more player than would have been allowed in the team sheet.

 

[Degnann]

I’ve never once taken a name for a sub. As ref or AR.

Is this something done regularly down south?

 

[es1]

I’ve never once taken a name for a sub. As ref or AR.

Is this something done regularly down south?

as standard...

what's your name pal, ok cheers, let me check boots, jewellery, wait for him to come off...ok...on you go

 

[GraemeS]

That is contrary to law.

"Anyone not named on the team list as
a player, substitute or team official is an outside agent"

It is clear from that statement we cannot treat this person as a player. And as such he should have been removed and the offending team should have been allowed to continue with 11 either by the player who left returning or the substitution procedure being completed properly with a named substitute entering the field of play.

I do wonder how this happened? Was it just an omission or did they have one more player than would have been allowed in the team sheet.

Is this a recent change? How do leagues operate without team sheets then?

 

[GraemeS]

as standard...

what's your name pal, ok cheers, let me check boots, jewellery, wait for him to come off...ok...on you go

Exactly. Although if we're talking "as standard", I'd echo the point previously made about why the referee/junior AR should take any flack for doing the standard thing. A ref at this level will have allowed a senior AR to manage subs dozens of times, many of those times observed, and I'd be amazed if a single observer has told him it's not acceptable to leave it to the AR to manage.

 

[JamesL]

Is this a recent change? How do leagues operate without team sheets then?

Even without team sheets names of substitutes have to be given to the referee before kick off. This is a matter of law, not comp rules which dictate whether a team sheet is needed or not.
That phrase is from law 3.7 extra persons on field of play (which is what this becomes) and has been there as long as I can remember

I’ve never once taken a name for a sub. As ref or AR.

Is this something done regularly down south?

To be fair I have been guilty of number on and number off and reconciling with the team sheet post match.
No more. It will be names in book and I'll be confirming names before entry moving forwards.

 

[GraemeS]

Even without team sheets names of substitutes have to be given to the referee before kick off. This is a matter of law, not comp rules which dictate whether a team sheet is needed or not.
That phrase is from law 3.7 extra persons on field of play (which is what this becomes) and has been there as long as I can remember

The section of law quoted specifies team sheets - not a scrap of paper with 3 subs names, or a verbal listing of subs names, but a full team list.

In practice I'm with you of course. But if we're relying on a strict reading of law to say yellow cards on this person aren't valid and therefore red cards don't count against his team, leagues that don't mandate this have a serious legitimacy problem.

 

[JamesL]

The section of law quoted specifies team sheets - not a scrap of paper with 3 subs names, or a verbal listing of subs names, but a full team list.

In practice I'm with you of course. But if we're relying on a strict reading of law to say yellow cards on this person aren't valid and therefore red cards don't count against his team, leagues that don't mandate this have a serious legitimacy problem.

Ok so we are taking this beyond what actually happened in this case.

So taking the two different scenario,

Scenario 1 - what has happened this weekend:
This is FA Cup. Competition rules state all players and subs must be names before kick off.
In this case, most certainly the player whom entered was an outside agent.

Scenario 2:
Law 3.1 says
If the competition rules state that all players and substitutes must be named
before kick-off and a team starts a match with fewer than eleven players,
only the players and substitutes named on the team list may take part in the
match upon their arrival.

Law 3.3 says
The names of the substitutes must be given to the referee before the start of the
match. Any substitute not named by this time may not take part in the match.

So the competition can decide if names of players and subs need to be provided. The laws state that substitutes MUST be provided or they can't take part. If they can't take part they can never become a player and therefore can't receive any disciplinary sanction from the referee.

I think this is probably one of the worst written laws in the whole book but there is just about enough info to piece this one together

 

[Big Cat]

The Highlights and story of the game are particularly interesting IMO
Some fault should rest with the Appointment's Officer. The Match Officials ought to have reflected the occasion. The signal given for HB disallowed goal reflects the apparent inexperience of AR1 (a reet mess). The substitution process is visibly poor, so obviously susceptible to the mistake that happened
The haranguing of the Referee was a function of poor Disciplinary Process

Bit of a disaster really. The Ref might be half decent, but his wings are now clipped

 

[Anubis]

The Highlights and story of the game are particularly interesting IMO
Some fault should rest with the Appointment's Officer. The Match Officials ought to have reflected the occasion. The signal given for HB disallowed goal reflects the apparent inexperience of AR1 (a reet mess). The substitution process is visibly poor, so obviously susceptible to the mistake that happened
The haranguing of the Referee was a function of poor Disciplinary Process

Bit of a disaster really. The Ref might be half decent, but his wings are now clipped

The handball call was either fantastic assisting, or, lucky, or, wrong

i cant make out from the clip which, although the scorer did start his celebration a bit sheepishly. The flagging could have been better, nerves? inexperience?
If the call is correct I be willling to overlook it

 

[RustyRef]

I'm sure you've explained / discussed this in another thread and I may be asking you a question you can't answer but if I am the junior AR, why should I get suspended for the senior AR not doing their duty?

Also as a ref surely you trust your senior AR and aren't double checking every name that comes on.

On this one the junior AR might well get away with an unnamed sub coming on. If I was the referee I would be pointing out that he was blameless as he couldn't possibly know the player coming on wasn't named, but that might not be enough to save him. The referee will be held culpable even though it was AR1's error.

Its the whole "you live as a team you die as a team" mantra. This one is tricky for AR2, but if it is something incorrect in law all of the officials are duty bound to get involved.

 

[Dino Ref]

Its the whole "you live as a team you die as a team" mantra.

I think this one sums it up really. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[M1EYP]

Having mulled this over, and followed the very interesting discussion on here, I have come to the conclusion that the referee got this call perfectly correct. There was an outside agent on the field of play. The referee must ensure that the outside agent leaves the field of play, which he did. I presume in fact this was not a "sending off", but the referee instructing the No.17 sub to leave the field of play. There is nothing further in the laws of the game (Law 3) about that situation, so there could be no follow-up action, such as reintroducing the replaced player, or swapping to a different substitute. As regrettable as it was that this situation existed, the referee dealt with it exactly as per the laws.

Of course, prior to that, the AR could have been more vigilant with the paperwork, as indeed could Wythenshawe's staff member who had the responsibility of filling out the teamsheet. Indeed the law itself could be more helpfully written with more explicit detail as to what happens in more scenarios. But in terms of the situation presented to the referee, I think that was dealt with entirely correctly.

As for the captain then getting booked twice for dissent within the space of a few seconds, the long delays due to Wythenshaw staff and players surrounding and arguing with the referee, and due to crowd trouble instigated by Wythenshawe fans leaving their area and attacking the Macc supporters - not to mention the attempted smokescreen by tweeting about "only" getting a tray of cheese sandwiches afterwards (it's gone viral), it's increasingly hard to find sympathy with Wythenshawe Town.

 

[Quarryref]

Having mulled this over, and followed the very interesting discussion on here, I have come to the conclusion that the referee got this call perfectly correct. There was an outside agent on the field of play. The referee must ensure that the outside agent leaves the field of play, which he did. I presume in fact this was not a "sending off", but the referee instructing the No.17 sub to leave the field of play. There is nothing further in the laws of the game (Law 3) about that situation, so there could be no follow-up action, such as reintroducing the replaced player, or swapping to a different substitute. As regrettable as it was that this situation existed, the referee dealt with it exactly as per the laws.

Of course, prior to that, the AR could have been more vigilant with the paperwork, as indeed could Wythenshawe's staff member who had the responsibility of filling out the teamsheet. Indeed the law itself could be more helpfully written with more explicit detail as to what happens in more scenarios. But in terms of the situation presented to the referee, I think that was dealt with entirely correctly.

As for the captain then getting booked twice for dissent within the space of a few seconds, the long delays due to Wythenshaw staff and players surrounding and arguing with the referee, and due to crowd trouble instigated by Wythenshawe fans leaving their area and attacking the Macc supporters - not to mention the attempted smokescreen by tweeting about "only" getting a tray of cheese sandwiches afterwards (it's gone viral), it's increasingly hard to find sympathy with Wythenshawe Town.

With respect, I don't agree on the decision being correct, although I have lots of sympathy with the referee - this is a real left-field one to be faced with !

For a substitution to be complete, a substitute has to enter the field of play. That didn't happen, therefore QED the substitution wasn't made. The player leaving the field of play also only becomes a substituted player once the substitution is complete, which it wasn't.

Therefore remove the outside agent and allow the player who left the FOP back on, is the correct course of action. Alternatively, as the player had permission to leave the field of play, he could be replaced with a named substitute without re-entering himself.

 

[RustyRef]

With respect, I don't agree on the decision being correct, although I have lots of sympathy with the referee - this is a real left-field one to be faced with !

For a substitution to be complete, a substitute has to enter the field of play. That didn't happen, therefore QED the substitution wasn't made. The player leaving the field of play also only becomes a substituted player once the substitution is complete, which it wasn't.

Therefore remove the outside agent and allow the player who left the FOP back on, is the correct course of action. Alternatively, as the player had permission to leave the field of play, he could be replaced with a named substitute without re-entering himself.

Yeah, I agree with that, the substitution procedure wasn't complete. As someone said earlier though, it is all a little irrelevent as the game is going to have to be replayed.

 

[JamesL]

Having mulled this over, and followed the very interesting discussion on here, I have come to the conclusion that the referee got this call perfectly correct. There was an outside agent on the field of play. The referee must ensure that the outside agent leaves the field of play, which he did. I presume in fact this was not a "sending off", but the referee instructing the No.17 sub to leave the field of play. There is nothing further in the laws of the game (Law 3) about that situation, so there could be no follow-up action, such as reintroducing the replaced player, or swapping to a different substitute. As regrettable as it was that this situation existed, the referee dealt with it exactly as per the laws.

Of course, prior to that, the AR could have been more vigilant with the paperwork, as indeed could Wythenshawe's staff member who had the responsibility of filling out the teamsheet. Indeed the law itself could be more helpfully written with more explicit detail as to what happens in more scenarios. But in terms of the situation presented to the referee, I think that was dealt with entirely correctly.

As for the captain then getting booked twice for dissent within the space of a few seconds, the long delays due to Wythenshaw staff and players surrounding and arguing with the referee, and due to crowd trouble instigated by Wythenshawe fans leaving their area and attacking the Macc supporters - not to mention the attempted smokescreen by tweeting about "only" getting a tray of cheese sandwiches afterwards (it's gone viral), it's increasingly hard to find sympathy with Wythenshawe Town.

Others have pointed why this wasn't correct way to handle it. The "substituted" player becomes just temporarily off the field of play as the substitution procedure was not completed and therefore he was not legally substituted.

Further to that you state it was correct no action taken as not covered in law. In fact this is also incorrect. The spirit of the game states that the laws of the game cannot cover every scenario and where something is not covered in law then the referee applies the spirit of the game and what football expects. It's not an it's not in law so we do nothing.

IMO there is enough in law to thrash this one out but just wanted to be clear that even if it wasn't we still have to do something along the lines of what football expects.

 

[Anubis]

Having mulled this over, and followed the very interesting discussion on here, I have come to the conclusion that the referee got this call perfectly correct. There was an outside agent on the field of play. The referee must ensure that the outside agent leaves the field of play, which he did. I presume in fact this was not a "sending off", but the referee instructing the No.17 sub to leave the field of play. There is nothing further in the laws of the game (Law 3) about that situation, so there could be no follow-up action, such as reintroducing the replaced player, or swapping to a different substitute. As regrettable as it was that this situation existed, the referee dealt with it exactly as per the laws.

Of course, prior to that, the AR could have been more vigilant with the paperwork, as indeed could Wythenshawe's staff member who had the responsibility of filling out the teamsheet. Indeed the law itself could be more helpfully written with more explicit detail as to what happens in more scenarios. But in terms of the situation presented to the referee, I think that was dealt with entirely correctly.

As for the captain then getting booked twice for dissent within the space of a few seconds, the long delays due to Wythenshaw staff and players surrounding and arguing with the referee, and due to crowd trouble instigated by Wythenshawe fans leaving their area and attacking the Macc supporters - not to mention the attempted smokescreen by tweeting about "only" getting a tray of cheese sandwiches afterwards (it's gone viral), it's increasingly hard to find sympathy with Wythenshawe Town.

bit worrying despite some excellent well written replies, the potential is there for folk to err, when, however unlikely, faced with the same

when is the sub procedure complete?
When the incoming sub enters the fop
no incoming sub entered the fop, merely Joe Bloggs.
so, there was no substitution

its really quite a simple situation to process, one would only guess the referee has crumpled heat of the moment

be in no doubt, the referee ( team) have messed up, big time

 

[M1EYP]

the game is going to have to be replayed.

Is it? Even though Macclesfield won? If Wythenshawe appeal that they were wrongly reduced to nine men, I guess that’s possible.

 

[JamesL]

Is it? Even though Macclesfield won? If Wythenshawe appeal that they were wrongly reduced to nine men, I guess that’s possible.

I think fielding an ineligible player is usually an expulsion... Depends how the FA view it I suppose.
This was an admin error as the lad was named on twitter apparently so maybe won't be seen as ineligible.

 

[RustyRef]

Is it? Even though Macclesfield won? If Wythenshawe appeal that they were wrongly reduced to nine men, I guess that’s possible.

Yeah, I meant that if Wythenshawe had won or it was a draw. The fact they lost doesn't get them off the hook though and they could potentially be banned from next year's competition. I suspect not as it will be seen as an oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive, but not impossible.