Too many players - YC for coach?

[santa sangria]

Away are down to ten after an early DOGSO-R. AR1 is enthusiastic but, let’s say a bit “creative”. Decisions have been going well. Communication between me and the ARs fine… until…

(And it’s flying/return subs… play does not have to be stopped… typically we are pretty forgiving - not pernicious - with subs coming and going if there’s no attempt to cheat…)

There’s a home throw close to the benches, nearly all players are close to the benches, I follow play down the line. AR1 flags an away offence. I stop the match. He tells me too many players were on the field. I ask him who am I carding? He doesn’t know. I have no idea and the correct number of players are on now so it cannot have been for long!

So, what are my options here? What would you do?

No one wanted to confess. I chose to continue the match.

After the match my AR said he wanted me to YC the coach. I said I cannot give him YC for entering the FoP! He didn’t. So, in theory, I could have asked the coach and YC’d if he did not tell me, really? I don’t want to escalate here. And the law about sanctioning the coach if a player cannot be identified applies to verbal offences (surely?).

I think AR1 should have given a verbal warning (common here) instead.

(I know the return subs with ball in play is a tough one to procesd for our UK readers but it is totally normal here across grassroots just like futsal.)

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Away are down to ten after an early DOGSO-R. AR1 is enthusiastic but, let’s say a bit “creative”. Decisions have been going well. Communication between me and the ARs fine… until…

(And it’s flying/return subs… play does not have to be stopped… typically we are pretty forgiving - not pernicious - with subs coming and going if there’s no attempt to cheat…)

There’s a home throw close to the benches, nearly all players are close to the benches, I follow play down the line. AR1 flags an away offence. I stop the match. He tells me too many players were on the field. I ask him who am I carding? He doesn’t know. I have no idea and the correct number of players are on now so it cannot have been for long!

So, what are my options here? What would you do?

No one wanted to confess. I chose to continue the match.

After the match my AR said he wanted me to YC the coach. I said I cannot give him YC for entering the FoP! He didn’t. So, in theory, I could have asked the coach and YC’d if he did not tell me, really? I don’t want to escalate here. And the law about sanctioning the coach if a player cannot be identified applies to verbal offences (surely?).

I think AR1 should have given a verbal warning (common here) instead.

(I know the return subs with ball in play is a tough one to procesd for our UK readers but it is totally normal here across grassroots just like futsal.)

Think you’re right RE: verbal warning. If the AR cannot identify them then why is he even flagging? I’d be having words personally

Really it’s a verbal warning and then escalate to booking players if they don’t listen or of course if they interfere with play.

Very keen AR but would probably benefit from joining the forum for a bit of perspective

 

[santa sangria]

To be fair to my AR there - I just checked the LotG and it doesn't specify that unidentified offender and YC for coach is limited to verbal offences.
I didn't realise that.
So, in theory, knowing that I could have approached coach, said I have to card you if you don't point out the offender for me, and taken it form there.

But year, really want my AR to stick to verbals there - especially as there were no appeals and it was 0-4 etc etc.

 

[JamesL]

(I know the return subs with ball in play is a tough one to procesd for our UK readers but it is totally normal here across grassroots just like futsal.)

You're damn right. What a show.

To be fair to my AR there - I just checked the LotG and it doesn't specify that unidentified offender and YC for coach is limited to verbal offences.
I didn't realise that.
So, in theory, knowing that I could have approached coach, said I have to card you if you don't point out the offender for me, and taken it form there.

But year, really want my AR to stick to verbals there - especially as there were no appeals and it was 0-4 etc etc.

I don't think you can. It's only TA occupants from the technical are occupants offences. A player, committing a player offence i.e. leaving/ reentering without permission surely can only go to the player whom committed that offence.

And, technically no offence has occurred as by default it seems players have the permission needed.

I'm sure that sub procedure is not a modifiable law so how are these rules even sanctioned

 

[santa sangria]

You're damn right. What a show.


I don't think you can. It's only TA occupants from the technical are occupants offences. A player, committing a player offence i.e. leaving/ reentering without permission surely can only go to the player whom committed that offence.

And, technically no offence has occurred as by default it seems players have the permission needed.

I'm sure that sub procedure is not a modifiable law so how are these rules even sanctioned

I hear you brother James (bro!) but there is that little caveat in the Fifa mumbo jumbo about local associations and modifying laws at grassroots.
What's crazy here is that we have quite a few variations - especially for 7v7 small field matches (OS, no OS, OS in the PA only, no GK over halfway) and then we have a couple for big field... nearly standardized across the serious grassroots leagues e.g. 3 2nd half sub events - but an injured GK can be a 4th event if subs still available.

But it has worked here fine forever. If you ref futsal then you have some reference for unlimited ball in play subs. And it's about inclusivity.
Tho TBH we have a few leagues - this was 3rd tier U20, and also 6th tier mens - where we have neutral ARs but combined with unlimited in play subs... strangely the coaches and players are overwhelmingly well-behaved with the unlimited subs (U9s coaches are the worst!) and problems are usually accidents and we look to our ARs to guide!

 

[JamesL]

I hear you brother James (bro!) but there is that little caveat in the Fifa mumbo jumbo about local associations and modifying laws at grassroots.

Yea I get that. But it also lists what can be modified and that is return substitutions, which relates to the "once a player is subbed can't come back law" I think it is stretching it to push that to allowing substitutes with the ball in play.

It may work well for the most part but it can very obviously (your post being a prime example) cause some serious issues... not least managing who is allowed to be on the pitch at any given time.

 

[FirsFox40]

What would your game expect? Remove extra, restart and crack on with no drama.

(Sounds like our idea of hell as all us Brits go… WHAAAAAAT?!)

 

[Peter Grove]

To be fair to my AR there - I just checked the LotG and it doesn't specify that unidentified offender and YC for coach is limited to verbal offences.
I didn't realise that.
So, in theory, knowing that I could have approached coach, said I have to card you if you don't point out the offender for me, and taken it form there.

Pretty sure that's not the case. When the law talks about:

Where an offence is committed by someone from the technical area ...and the offender cannot be identified ...

I'm fairly certain it means an offence that is committed by someone who is a "current occupant" of the technical area and is also restricted to the offences listed in the following paragraphs.

In neither case would it apply to a situation where you had an extra player on the field of play, as far as I can tell.

 

[ARF]

"Where an offence is committed by someone from the technical area (substitute, substituted player, sent-off player, or team official) and the offender cannot be identified, the senior team coach present in the technical area will receive the sanction."

As the extra player on the field of play would have been one of the substitutes, then it does fall under technical area occupant offences IMO. However, in this situation there is no way of not identifying the offender, as obviously you're not going to restart play until they've removed a player so that they have 10 as they're supposed to... so for me, whoever they take off is the one getting the card!

(If we're forensically analysing law, then if the extra player/substitute in question has interfered in play then it's a sending off offence)

 

[one]

I am really not too fussed about what you do in terms of caution, around a modification to the lotg that is not allowed. When a lotg says to caution and when not to was designed around subs at stoppages. This is not the case, so there is no right or wrong answer.

 

[santa sangria]

"Where an offence is committed by someone from the technical area (substitute, substituted player, sent-off player, or team official) and the offender cannot be identified, the senior team coach present in the technical area will receive the sanction."

As the extra player on the field of play would have been one of the substitutes, then it does fall under technical area occupant offences IMO. However, in this situation there is no way of not identifying the offender, as obviously you're not going to restart play until they've removed a player so that they have 10 as they're supposed to... so for me, whoever they take off is the one getting the card!

(If we're forensically analysing law, then if the extra player/substitute in question has interfered in play then it's a sending off offence)

As mentioned. Due to flying subs, the correct number of players were on very quickly.

 

[santa sangria]

Pretty sure that's not the case. When the law talks about:

I'm fairly certain it means an offence that is committed by someone who is a "current occupant" of the technical area and is also restricted to the offences listed in the following paragraphs.

In neither case would it apply to a situation where you had an extra player on the field of play, as far as I can tell.

Ok interesting.

Say in a match with usual subs. An extra player has entered the field wearing a vest. The officials can’t identify. Surely then the coach can take the card?

 

[RustyRef]

I think it is more than a bit of a push to say any coaches should be cautioned here. The law about the senior coach getting the caution if the offender can't be identified was presumably to make them take responsibility for the technical area. In the latter scenario the sub could have just wandered on himself. In the OP it sounds like one or both of an over enthusiastic player or an AR that is a little bit too eager to get involved. If he can't identify who it was he certainly shouldn't be alerting you to it.

 

[Peter Grove]

Ok interesting.

Say in a match with usual subs. An extra player has entered the field wearing a vest. The officials can’t identify. Surely then the coach can take the card?

I don't see anything in the law, as I read it, that would allow you to caution the coach for this.

As @RustyRef says (and I agree) the law about cautioning the coach is for behaviour directly related to the technical area, the various behaviours it applies to are listed, and having an extra player on the field is not one of the specified "technical area" offences.

Also, in this scenario if it's just one player who has entered without permission and one of the match officials has seen this happen (otherwise why would you be looking to penalise?) why would you not be able to identify them?

 

[Peter Grove]

Another thing just occurred to me. Even though it appears there was an extra player on the field at one point (and in the original scenario you said by the time you were notified, that was no longer the case) should the referee be looking to caution the extra player anyway?

Law 3 doesn't say specifically that an extra player has to be cautioned. Law 12 says a player is cautioned for entering the field of play without the referee’s permission but with return substitutions in place (and especially when being implemented the way you describe) is it the case that the player had implicit (if erroneous) permission?

 

[one]

Another thing just occurred to me. Even though it appears there was an extra player on the field at one point (and in the original scenario you said by the time you were notified, that was no longer the case) should the referee be looking to caution the extra player anyway?

Law 3 doesn't say specifically that an extra player has to be cautioned. Law 12 says a player is cautioned for entering the field of play without the referee’s permission but with return substitutions in place (and especially when being implemented the way you describe) is it the case that the player had implicit (if erroneous) permission?

Yeap. The point I was making. The laws are designed for stoppage subs with explicit permission. There is no way flying subs can get explicit permission. So the first question here is did the extra player enter too early (a lot too early) for a substitution or just entered thinking they are one short and wanted to complete the numbers, or othere reasons? The latter cases would be an easy entering without permission caution under standard lotg games, for flying subs, we need "proof".

For the former case, there is no mandatory caution for stoppage substitutions breach of process but it won't be against the laws to caution for USB for gross breaches of it, it specially makes sense for flying subs when the referee doesn't have much control over it and if not controlled teams can end up with many more than just one extra player on the field.

Too many ifs and buts here. For me, given non lotg procedures, doing what feels right at the time is the go. It can always be shoehorned into some part of the standard lotg if justification is required.

 

[santa sangria]

Context - here, at grassroots football (and like futsal) return ball in play subs have been used successfully for decades in hundreds of thousands of matches.

This is specifically to encourage participation and inclusion in a country with a short season where football is the number 3-4-5 sport.

The convention is to manage the subs with a stepped approach: remind before the match to keep the correct number, only change at the benches unless injured&authorised, verbal warning for minor violation, YC for extra player if egrarious violation.

Regarding how such a local law is ”approved” I will PSA and check for you. But I think it’s likely cleared by the national FA with e.g. Uefa and/or via agreements.

 

[socal lurker]

I suspect it is a case of not asking for permission and waiting to see if anyone cares enough to tell non-professional leagues to knock it off. My sense is that England is more *****ly than most places about not having law modifications at grassroots that aren’t permitted.

 

[santa sangria]

I suspect it is a case of not asking for permission and waiting to see if anyone cares enough to tell non-professional leagues to knock it off. My sense is that England is more *****ly than most places about not having law modifications at grassroots that aren’t permitted.

Well, the LotG gives permission for return substitutes at grassroots.

Can the referee be deemed to have given permission for all subs? Is that the get-out?

The problematic line in law 3 is more ”the player only enters… after receiving a signal from the referee.” But that’s a bit of a stretch even in standard subs procedure - the referee typically signals the AR to do the procedure!

Anyway, I asked my guy!

 

[Mr Dean]

Well, the LotG gives permission for return substitutes at grassroots.

Can the referee be deemed to have given permission for all subs? Is that the get-out?

The problematic line in law 3 is more ”the player only enters… after receiving a signal from the referee.” But that’s a bit of a stretch even in standard subs procedure - the referee typically signals the AR to do the procedure!

Anyway, I asked my guy!

The problematic line in Law 3 is more likely to be

"The substitute only enters:

during a stoppage in play..."