Question Number: 33953

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/30/2020

RE: Rec Under 16

Doug Crawford of Moraga, CA US asks...

This question is a follow up to question 33951

Well I am not going to ignore the challenge!
In this case, the sub goalie clearly "entered the field without permission", even while told not to, so no excuses.
He is a sub who has interfered with play, denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
The sub goalie is off with a red card.
Restart w PK (if the ball contact was in the PA).
Before the law changes 1-2 years ago, I am not sure! It was not too long ago that subs could not be punished for DOGSO.
I think the laws change too often.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Doug
Thanks for your reply.
Since the Law changes the decision is more clearer and I agree that a substitute running on to interfere with play is now a direct free kick / penalty kick and as the offence denies a goal it is a DOGSO red card.
Now one size does not fit all and I would throw in a few additional considerations.
1. For a game to continue it must have a goalkeeper. At what point does a referee stop play to deal with the no goalkeeper present scenarios?
2. If play has restarted after a substitution that was not managed correctly with no action taken by the referee then it may have to be accepted. Much akin like the unreported substitution at half time.
3. Games involving roll on roll off substitutions the process if not tightly managed can pose a problem. Clearly the obvious run on of a substitute during play can be dealt with easily yet the unnoticed substitution could prove more problematic.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Doug,
I wasnt involved with the site when the debare over this You Call It question apparently arose, so Im not sure but I imagine the issue back then was over whether the interloper should be sent off or not. I agree with ref McHugh that the law is much clearer now and the unauthorised goalkeeper should indeed be sent off.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Sorry Doug ,
for some reason my response not a answer per say was deleted by accident before posting, darn computer glitches lol You did well to use current interpretations to formulate an answer.
The answers for this question even back then when first posted was not JUST the card issue and send off and substitute issues but the fact the keeper was NOWHERE around. The team EFFECTIVELY had NO keeper on the FOP!!! If we imagine, WHAT if the extra player who ran on to replace the keeper had in fact NOT ran on, would you as the referee think allowing a goal scored into an empty net ro be validated by the LOTG or somehow tainted by the lack of spirit then not accepting it as fair play? There is NO doubt in a real match with radio and communication buzzers the fact the keeper had basically abandoned the game is certainly going to be communicated far quicker . Now if we consider the fact the keeper left because he quit what if say he was ill or sick mentally? What if his leaving the FOP could be considered as an act of serious mental illness? What if the AR had in fact stopped the substitution but the team down a keeper watch as a goal is scored into an NOW unguarded net? Would they not be screaming at the AR to tell the CR to stop play ? Is it NOT REALLY in the interest of fair play to do so?? THe LOTG do have a spirit portion, that at least in theory, do try to cover these unusual situations with achieving a result best for the game itself. I was one of the dissenters back then that there was NO effective keeper and according the the LOTG a keeper was required thus play MUST be halted once the keeper had left the stadium. You can certainly justify the cards and the send offs per the written portion of the LOTG but is a PK and the fact the team is down 2 players once the dust settles really an outcome the GAME deserved? My thoughts were the AR did a HORRIBLE job in managing the outcome . I would have assured the team WITHOUT a keeper I would physically verbally contact the CR to STOP play rather than debate an illegal substitution outcome. THis is different than a keeper wandering away to have a cigarette or smile at the girlfriend in boredom and be caught out not paying attention .Even a debilitating groin pull or cramp forcing a keeper to not be able to respond to an attack does not lessen his presence in the FOP. My solution was as AR THIS IS NEVER going to be an issue because I would have the CR stop play with every possible way of doing so,. Cheers