Law 3.8 Player Outside the field of play

[JamesL]

Semi related to a scenario I had in my game at the weekend:

Law 3.8 basically says that if a player who needs the referees permission to re-enter does so without it then the referee stops play, but not immediately if there is interference or advantage applied.

It then goes on to offer a restart (idfk from location of ball) if play is stopped without interference.

If play shouldn't be stopped immediately without interference then why do we need a restart for no interference?

And, why has this law not been updated to reflect restarts following an offence baing taken from the position of the offence? (My guess is to stop players from running on in attacking situations, but that is covered by not stopping unless interfering)

Answers on a postcard.

 

[one]

Before we had the restart in the law I sent an email to DE asking what the restart should be if referee stops play for match control reasons (for example) reather than interference. At the time his response was any stopping of game should be considered interference (kind of makes sense). I think the following season we did have the restart in law. I think that email is posted on the forum somewhere but if you can't find it I can post it again on my return.

The answer to a lot of your why's is that most changes or clarification in law are done in isolation without analysing its impact to other parts of law. Similar concept exists in poor computer programming practices, you change code to fix one bug but introduce another bug somewhere else without knowing.

 

[JamesL]

Before we had the restart in the law I sent an email to DE asking what the restart should be if referee stops play for match control reasons (for example) reather than interference. At the time his response was any stopping of game should be considered interference (kind of makes sense). I think the following season we did have the restart in law. I think that email is posted on the forum somewhere but if you can't find it I can post it again on my return.

The answer to a lot of your why's is that most changes or clarification in law are done in isolation without analysing its impact to other parts of law. Similar concept exists in poor computer programming practices, you change code to fix one bug but introduce another bug somewhere else without knowing.

Ok, that kind of makes sense.

What sort of match control reasons were you thinking about, that weren't interfering, as we know/understand it?

And I kind of knew that is a the probable reason for it not changing to position of offence (POO ).

In my game I allowed an injured player to roll off to get seen to, and remove him for offside purposes... He rolled back on w/o permission and I stopped play once the ball was safely in his GKs hands.

I restarted with a dropped ball to GK which I now think to be, potentially, incorrect in law but no way am I giving an idfk in the box there. Game didn't expect or want it but the caution was accepted by all as was the restart I gave.

In hindsight I should have just allowed play to carry on until it naturally stopped.

 

[bester]

If the interference is, eg a non-foul tackle, that stops a promising attack then it's two yellows? Can't remember where we are with that one as IFAB flip-flopped then the wording was changed.

 

[one]

Ok, that kind of makes sense.

What sort of match control reasons were you thinking about, that weren't interfering, as we know/understand it?

And I kind of knew that is a the probable reason for it not changing to position of offence (POO ).

In my game I allowed an injured player to roll off to get seen to, and remove him for offside purposes... He rolled back on w/o permission and I stopped play once the ball was safely in his GKs hands.

I restarted with a dropped ball to GK which I now think to be, potentially, incorrect in law but no way am I giving an idfk in the box there. Game didn't expect or want it but the caution was accepted by all as was the restart I gave.

In hindsight I should have just allowed play to carry on until it naturally stopped.

Generally I stop play to avoid bigger problems if the game is already heated. But match control was just an example.

Your hindsight response is a good option, for me I wait for the ball to be in a more neutral position. That way his action causes a loss of ball posession as well which makes him think harder the next time he (or anyone else) thinks of doing the same.

 

[JamesL]

Generally I stop play to avoid bigger problems if the game is already heated. But match control was just an example.

Your hindsight response is a good option, for me I wait for the ball to be in a more neutral position. That way his action causes a loss of ball posession as well which makes him think harder the next time he (or anyone else) thinks of doing the same.

Now have beef with IFAB as their response makes no sense whatsoever...

"The Law exist as it does because:

• On occasions, the referee wrongly stops play and the feeling is that as the player has wrongly entered the field of play a free kick should be given but not a direct free kick as there was no actual interference
• As no offence has occurred there is no ‘offence location’ from which to take the free kick."

1) if there is no offence then how can a free kick be the restart (see law 13)?
2) an offence has occurred else what are we cautioning for?

My suggestion would be either a dropped ball for stopping play in error or idfk from the boundary where player entered i.e. where the offence happened and in line with leaving w/permission and play being stopped.

 

[one]

Yes, yes and yes.

If there is no offence then what are you cautioning for? I go with IFK from boundry.

 

[JamesL]

Yes, yes and yes.

If there is no offence then what are you cautioning for? I go with IFK from boundry.

Agree, preferred option is ifk from boundary. That's where/when the offence of entering w/o permission happens and is consistent with leaving offence and play stopping and restarts being from where the offence occurs.

But, again, just don't stop play.

 

[one]

Or if you want to go by the book, and you need to stop play for other reasons, wait for a neutral place for the ball and give IFK.

 

[Therealcjhill]

Ok, that kind of makes sense.

What sort of match control reasons were you thinking about, that weren't interfering, as we know/understand it?

And I kind of knew that is a the probable reason for it not changing to position of offence (POO ).

In my game I allowed an injured player to roll off to get seen to, and remove him for offside purposes... He rolled back on w/o permission and I stopped play once the ball was safely in his GKs hands.

I restarted with a dropped ball to GK which I now think to be, potentially, incorrect in law but no way am I giving an idfk in the box there. Game didn't expect or want it but the caution was accepted by all as was the restart I gave.

In hindsight I should have just allowed play to carry on until it naturally stopped.

I’m picturing him rolling off, being seen to by coach/medical and then just rolling back on to restart, instead of walking on. Like something kids would do

 

[JamesL]

I’m picturing him rolling off, being seen to by coach/medical and then just rolling back on to restart, instead of walking on. Like something kids would do

Haha. No.

Injured in a coming together (I didn't actually see that). Away team take possession so he rolled off, and in my view I was giving him permission to. Then when his GK recovered the ball he rolled back on to the pitch having yet not been seen or treated to I assume try to get play stopped