A&H

Sent off player

one

one

RefChat Addict
A player is sent off during the game and his/her team are playing with 10. Can the referee (or competition rules) allow a named substitute to become a player?

(I know there are far more debatable things in law to clarify but I am questioning the meaning of 'replaced' in lotg)
 
The Referee Store
one said:
A player is sent off during the game and his/her team are playing with 10. Can the referee (or competition rules) allow a named substitute to become a player?

(I know there are far more debatable things in law to clarify but I am questioning the meaning of 'replaced' in lotg)
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to picture a scenario where a team would be playing with 10 (before a red card) if a named substitute was available.

To answer your question though, I don't see what would prevent that from happening because the team would remain at a disadvantage by playing with 10 players and be 1 down from a playing 11 as a result of the red card (unless of course competition rules specified it was a 10 v 10 game).
 
one said:
A player is sent off during the game and his/her team are playing with 10. Can the referee (or competition rules) allow a named substitute to become a player?

(I know there are far more debatable things in law to clarify but I am questioning the meaning of 'replaced' in lotg)
Click to expand...
No.
Sending-off
Disciplinary action when a player is required to leave the field for the remainder
of the match having committed a sending-off offence (indicated by a red card); if
the match has started the player cannot be replaced.

However, knowing your online forum persona very well this is not as straight forward an answer as I am presenting and wholly expecting you to me with some crazy oversight in law that I havent considered
 
There actually is a more complete explanation in the body of law 3.

Screenshot_20210213-003738__01.jpg

As per OP I am questioning the interpretation of the word 'replaced'. Law 3 allows each team to have a maximum of 11 players. If a team started with 11 players, had a player sent off in the first half and sent one of their substitutes in in the second half, it can be argued they are not replacing the sent off player, but simply exercising their right to have 11 players as per law 3. In a similar way as if they decided to start the first half with 10 players themselves and simply send one of the substitutes in in the second half (without replacing any player).

TBH this came to me in a trial/friendly game when I sent a player off and both teams wanted to play 11 v 11. Was it against the lotg to allow it.
 
Oh, come on. This is just plain silly. The only way a substitute becomes a player is by replacing another player. (For decades the Laws didn't even specifically say a sent off player could not be replaced and it was only a function of the fact that the sub has to come in for a player and the sent off person is no longer a player.
 
one said:
There actually is a more complete explanation in the body of law 3.

View attachment 4789

As per OP I am questioning the interpretation of the word 'replaced'. Law 3 allows each team to have a maximum of 11 players. If a team started with 11 players, had a player sent off in the first half and sent one of their substitutes in in the second half, it can be argued they are not replacing the sent off player, but simply exercising their right to have 11 players as per law 3. In a similar way as if they decided to start the first half with 10 players themselves and simply send one of the substitutes in in the second half (without replacing any player).

TBH this came to me in a trial/friendly game when I sent a player off and both teams wanted to play 11 v 11. Was it against the lotg to allow it.
Click to expand...
This only applies to pre-game.


For example if when you go out for a warm-up a player commits a sending off offence then he can be replaced by a named substitute.
 
socal lurker said:
The only way a substitute becomes a player is by replacing another player.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. If a team deliberately starts with less than 11, at any given time during the game a substitute can become a player without replacing another player.

I am not questioning what the law intends or what we know and practice.
 
Once a team has a player sent off after kick off, they lose the right to have 11 players - as One has said, law states a maximum of 11, i. e. not a guaranteed 11.
 
one said:
Not true at all. If a team deliberately starts with less than 11, at any given time during the game a substitute can become a player without replacing another player.

I am not questioning what the law intends or what we know and practice.
Click to expand...

Hmm, is that strictly true? Lets say that a team has a player missing at kick off time, they can either decide to start with 10 or promote a substitute to the starting 11 and the late player becomes a sub when he arrives. If they choose the former option, i.e. start with 10, a substitute coming on would be to replace a starting player, whereas the late player could go straight on once he arrives.

Of course, this gets a bit muddied in games with repeat substitutions though.
 
RustyRef said:
Hmm, is that strictly true? Lets say that a team has a player missing at kick off time, they can either decide to start with 10 or promote a substitute to the starting 11 and the late player becomes a sub when he arrives. If they choose the former option, i.e. start with 10, a substitute coming on would be to replace a starting player, whereas the late player could go straight on once he arrives.

Of course, this gets a bit muddied in games with repeat substitutions though.
Click to expand...
True and that's one example. But another is they have no late arrivals. They may just want to start with 10 due to whatever reason. Let's say sportsmanship because the other team only has 10 players. Everyone on the bench is a named substitute (this is the case even if the rules allow returned sub). They fall 2 goals behind and they decide they now want to play with 11 players. Does the substitute who enters the field replace a player?
 
one said:
True and that's one example. But another is they have no late arrivals. They may just want to start with 10 due to whatever reason. Let's say sportsmanship because the other team only has 10 players. Everyone on the bench is a named substitute (this is the case even if the rules allow returned sub). They fall 2 goals behind and they decide they now want to play with 11 players. Does the substitute who enters the field replace a player?
Click to expand...

Probably one for competition rules. But technically if they are a named substitute they aren't part of the starting 11 and therefore can only replace an existing player.
 
I think you are coming around to what I was asking in the OP when saying one for the competition rules. If comp rules can say they can increase to 11 if they started with less, can it say they can increase to 11 when they go down to 10 by a red card?
 
one said:
I think you are coming around to what I was asking in the OP when saying one for the competition rules. If comp rules can say they can increase to 11 if they started with less, can it say they can increase to 11 when they go down to 10 by a red card?
Click to expand...

No, that would be the most stupidly worded competition rules ever. If you have a player sent off you can't possibly have more than 10 players on the pitch.
 
RustyRef said:
No, that would be the most stupidly worded competition rules ever. If you have a player sent off you can't possibly have more than 10 players on the pitch.
Click to expand...
I can definitely see some form of youth competition having this in the rules. I have seen examples of a player being sent off and both teams asked if 11 could play in a friendly on this very board.
 
RustyRef said:
No, that would be the most stupidly worded competition rules ever. If you have a player sent off you can't possibly have more than 10 players on the pitch.
Click to expand...
Oh but of course. But the laws of the game has not closed that option off (at at least not categorically) . That's the whole point.

And as pointed out, I can see some cases where it's not so stupid.
 
one said:
True and that's one example. But another is they have no late arrivals. They may just want to start with 10 due to whatever reason. Let's say sportsmanship because the other team only has 10 players. Everyone on the bench is a named substitute (this is the case even if the rules allow returned sub). They fall 2 goals behind and they decide they now want to play with 11 players. Does the substitute who enters the field replace a player?
Click to expand...
This is not possible unless the "substitute" entering the field is actually named in the starting 11 (as a player) but decided to sit on the sidelines instead of playing.
 
Mr Dean said:
This is not possible unless the "substitute" entering the field is actually named in the starting 11 (as a player) but decided to sit on the sidelines instead of playing.
Click to expand...
Not really. What you say means LOTG to specify 11 players for a game. That not the case. Lotg requires maximum 11 players which means the team is within their right to have 10 players (starting 10) at ko.
 
one said:
Not really. What you say means LOTG to specify 11 players for a game. That not the case. Lotg requires maximum 11 players which means the team is within their right to have 10 players (starting 10) at ko.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if the team only names 10 players, they can't add an extra player after kick off. If they name 11 players players but one of those players sits out, that player can enter the field later on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top