On our training courses we always tell new referees that if a substitute enters the field of play without the referee's permission, play should be stopped and the substitute cautioned before being sent from the field of play. 'How,' we then ask them, 'would you restart the game'.
Most times there has been a majority for a free kick but until this season the correct answer has been, a dropped ball. However, a
change to the law at the beginning of this season has now made it an indirect free kick.
You might think that it is a good thing that the law has been changed to reflect what most people believe anyway but I have to ask if this really is a logical change. The reason we always gave trainees to help them remember that it was a dropped ball, was that free kicks can only be given against players. Yes, you can caution a substitute, even if he is not on the field of play, indeed substitutes can be 'sent off ' without even 'coming on'. For example, perhaps they have shouted unacceptable comments at you from the touch line whilst play is in progress and out come the cards. But if you stop play to deal with them, you can't award a free kick. To my mind this is absolutely logical. Free kicks can only be awarded against players. But by this ruling, logic has been turned on its head.
Let's look at some of the implications. What if the substitute comes on and handles the ball? The law says we must always punish the more serious offence, so presumably we must award a direct free kick and not an indirect free kick. If this happens in the penalty area, by the same reasoning this would be a penalty. If the substitute comes on and stops the ball going into the goal by kicking it away, is this unfairly denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity? Sending-off and a penalty?
Take the situation at a penalty kick. The kick is taken but a substitute rushes on and prevents the ball going in the goal. Until now, after the substitute has been removed, the penalty kick would be retaken as it would for any other 'outside agent' interfering with the play. Are we now expected under this ruling, to award an indirect free
kick? I'm sure clubs would much prefer to retake the kick leaving only the goalkeeper to beat, than an indirect free kick where all the opponents can line up between the kicker and the goal. I think we need to be told.
The reason we are given for this change is that 'by coming onto the field of play without the referee's permission, it is considered that this constitutes an infringement by his team'. As I have already said, if a substitute standing on the touchline, shouts and dissents your decision, you can stop play and caution him. Now, can we also give a free kick to the opponents? It is, by the same logic, an infringement by his team.
In all my years as a referee, I can never recall a substitute entering the field of play without my permission. (OK, I have to admit that there were no substitutes permitted for the first twelve years). I am not talking about substitutes who are anxious to get into the game, coming on before the player being replaced has left the field. I often have to restrain them but I have never had to stop a game to remove a substitute from the field of play with the game in progress. I wonder how many times has it has happened.
It seems to me that, not only do we have a totally illogical change to the laws, we also have one that is unnecessary.
Dick
Sawdon Smith