A&H

What happens here?

The Referee Store
By law the ref got it correct. I would personally ask the defending team to stand back and let the attacking team score
 
I'd have given a drop ball from the edge of the goal area although it sounds as if this would be wrong.

Out of interest how would you report the red card?
 
Last edited:
Ignore what I said. Drop ball would of been correct. Who has he given the red card to? If it was to the player who came on to clear it then I believe that is incorrect? It should be a yellow for entering the field without permission(?)
 
I've watched it back and couldn't see the card colour so not sure what he did. Before I thought he'd given red.

Caution for entering the field of play without permission is my thinking too. Reading a couple of the comments someone suggested a Red for DOGSO but I don't think that is technically correct.
 
Careful what that caution is for. You can't caution a substitute for "entering the field of play without permission" (pg 39 of 14/15).

As the substitute is not the nominated/named GK and uses his hands... DOGSO-H should apply here... doesn't matter if the substitute is the "backup GK", the substitute handles the ball to deny the goal.

Edit: Forgot the restart... whoops

I believe that this is an IFK which would be at the point of infringement (the handling, as it is the more serious offence), unless inside the goal area, in which case it'd be on the edge (etc etc), rather than a dropped ball
 
Dropball from where the offence occurred for outside interference.

Caution the sub for entering the pitch without your permission.
 
Agree with Alex F. Red for DOGSO-H and IDFK restart on the 6-yard line. DOGSO-H has different requirements, if he had headed the ball it would've be YC + IDFK.
Believe this scenario was in the last published Q&A.
 
This is certainly a drop ball, it is an outside interference
 
"Anyone not indicated on the team list as a player, substitute or team official is deemed to be an outside agent, as is a player who has been sent off."
 
I'm not saying that you're wrong @drahc but do you not think that's a bit strange? One team clearly disadvantaged (in this case massively) and we should restart with a drop ball.
 
First: Caution for entering FOP without permission. This then governs the restart as it is the FIRST offense commited.
Second: Dismiss substitute for DOGSO-H
Third: Restart play with an IFK to the opposition from where the first breach of law (the entering FOP without permission) occured.
 
Bester - you have proven me wrong - thanks!

What a fascinating scenario - I really have no clue what the correct procedure is!
 
FIFA actually commented on the correct procedure for a similar scenario in the 2006 LOTG Q&A:
A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take?

The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped.
Click to expand...

Obviously this differs to the original post in that the substitute does not actually commit DOGSO but I still believe the above is the correct course of action for both scenarios.

Interestingly enough, FIFA recommends an indirect free kick rather than a drop ball.

I would think we can all agree the best way to deal with this situation is prevention! The referee should not have allowed the substitute to have been behind the goals in the first place.
 
Outside interference ,drop ball , red for the sub ,

in a pub game though i would say the ball was over the line lol probably would get less grief that way
 
The answer lies in the way the LOTG are written.

"A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
* denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
* denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick"

If a player entered the field of play and makes a challenge on an opponent, or stops the ball from entering the goal with any other part of his body other than his arm/hand, then you cannot send the player off for DOGSO, as the wording in the law states that you are sending someone off for an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty. Since a substitute cannot be guilty of committing a foul, you cannot send them off for DOGSO.

However, the wording for DOGSO-H does not mention anything about an offense punishable by a free kick, all it mentions is that you're sending off the player for denying a goal by deliberately handling the ball, which this substitute has done. Therefore the correct thing to do is to send the player off for DOGSO-H and an indirect freekick.
 
If you think about it logically, if you were to restart with a dropped ball then you would have substitutes running on left, right and centre stopping the ball from going in. Red card, IDFK.
 
Good point there , you could also bin him for entering and leaving the FOP without permission ;) i would get him somehow
 
Further followup:

FIFA's got a question on this precise scenario on their latest FIFA quiz DVD (2012-13):

A substitute enters the field of play without the referee's permission and prevents a goal by catching the ball with his hands. What decision should the referee make?

Answer: The referee should award an indirect free kick and send off the substitute for preventing a goal with his hand.​

No mention of a caution for entering the field of play without permission (which would be for UNSPORTING BEHAVIOUR as per pg 39 of the 2014/15 version of the Laws). I was told this past autumn at an instructor course with a Futuro III instructor that in a case like this, we, as referees, should not look for excuses to show cards, but should simply show (and report) the greater misconduct (ie, the sending off for DOGSO-H). In this case, the IFK is from the point where the handling occurred, because we're only punishing the greater misconduct.

If the player stops it "legally", then caution for USB and IFK where the player entered the field of play.

This is why, in cases of mass confrontation or violent conduct, we don't caution for unsporting behaviour (for lesser handbags) and then send off for violent conduct on punches. Just send off and call it a day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top