Concacaf Nations League

[JamesL]

Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear
opportunity to score a goal.

That's pretty clear is it not?

Very clever @Big Cat however two can play that game...

Preceding the text you so kindly shared it says:

However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

That's pretty clear, is it not?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Yes, that's clear, but the argument is, at the time the tackle is made, if an advantage is playable then the player hasn't actually committed a cautionable offence because he has not stopped the promising attack.

Hasn't stopped it, but has interfered with it, as per Law 12.

 

[JamesL]

Hasn't stopped it, but has interfered with it, as per Law 12.

I'll try again:

if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Hasn't stopped it, but has interfered with it, as per Law 12.

Are you saying you should play advantage and then caution? Or am I reading that completely wrong

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I'll try again:

if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

I was reminding Referee X of the inclusion of "interfered" - which you had done also.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Are you saying you should play advantage and then caution? Or am I reading that completely wrong

I am in the same camp as @santa sangria on this. Should have stopped play and sent off for the second caution offence.
In mentioning "interfered" I was reminding Referee X that it does not need to be stopping a promising attack (a point James had made also)

 

[Big Cat]

Very clever @Big Cat however two can play that game...

Preceding the text you so kindly shared it says:

However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

That's pretty clear, is it not?

Yes, of course, the LOTG is an embarrassing disjointed, nonsensical pamphlet, but the statement I extracted is explicit, whereas other arguments are implied. When we moan about players not knowing the rules, is it any surprise that referees struggle with them too?

 

[RefereeX]

OK, so substitute where I said 'stopped' to 'stopped or sufficiently interfered with'

There's a very clear reason that it's no longer a yellow when advantage can be applied, and that is because the team have still be able to have the promising attack, therefore whether he interfered with it or stopped it, isn't all that relevant.

 

[RustyRef]

All that has happened here is law has not been updated to reflect the "double jeopardy" change that was brought in a few years ago, and that has left us with two conflicting statements.

If a player on a caution committed an SPA foul and there was a very clear advantage I'd be playing on. I'm more in the camp of finding a reason to keep a player on than finding a reason to send them off, so this approach just fits best with that principle. You also have to look at the purpose of advantage, it is to benefit the team that had a foul committed against them. Stopping play just because the opponent was on a caution doesn't benefit them, especially if it is late in the game.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

OK, so substitute where I said 'stopped' to 'stopped or sufficiently interfered with'

There's a very clear reason that it's no longer a yellow when advantage can be applied, and that is because the team have still be able to have the promising attack, therefore whether he interfered with it or stopped it, isn't all that relevant.

So you are choosing to ignore the LOTG as quoted earlier by @Big Cat? :
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear
opportunity to score a goal.
Given where the offence occurred, there was no clear opportunity in this case.

 

[Big Cat]

very clear advantage I'd be playing on

I agree, very clear advantage perhaps equates to
a clear opportunity to score a goal

I think as long as the Referee 'knows their onions' in the debrief, I would be inclined to support the Referee regardless because the Referee can't be held accountable for contradictions in the book

 

[socal lurker]

A bit of Schrödinger’s cat here. . . .IMHO, the send off language doesn’t trump the SPA no caution for advantage. Of course it’s poorly written because IFAB is crappy at drafting, especially when they bolt on a new provision without thinking through how it relates to other provisions. As I posted above, I think when you consider the reasons for the provisions, it’s pretty clear the SPA exception applies if there is an advantage to be properly played, as there is not specter of having a player who should have been sent off still involved in play.

 

[santa sangria]

Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear
opportunity to score a goal.

That's pretty clear is it not?

I mean really why this thread. It is crystal clear.

Not stopping play for the 2YC/RC is an error on law. Don’t do it!

 

[santa sangria]

Let’s also remember the OP: “…he commits a foul in the Mexican defending half”.

TBH shocked by this thread.

For once law is clear.

 

[Runner-Ref]

I mean really why this thread. It is crystal clear.

Not stopping play for the 2YC/RC is an error on law. Don’t do it!

Whilst I agree you could sell a decision either way, I'm not convinced that it is crystal clear or an error in law. The arguments above prove that.

Weirdly, very few of us have actually seen the incident, so its hard to judge it.

It may well have been in the opponents half, but in the final minutes of a game like this one, playing on could certainly be the advantage compared to a sending off.

 

[santa sangria]

Whilst I agree you could sell a decision either way, I'm not convinced that it is crystal clear or an error in law. The arguments above prove that.

Weirdly, very few of us have actually seen the incident, so its hard to judge it.

It may well have been in the opponents half, but in the final minutes of a game like this one, playing on could certainly be the advantage compared to a sending off.

Not for me chief.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Not for me chief.

Why do you think it's an error in law?

@JamesL & @Big Cat have put in their bits of law that could certainly be supportable. But law also states

The referee may play advantage whenever an offence occurs but should consider the following in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

the severity of the offence – if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal

the position where the offence was committed – the closer to the opponent’s goal, the more effective the advantage can be

the chances of an immediate, promising attack

the atmosphere of the match

If you had a 3 on 2 breakaway, even in the attackers half, this could be an immediate promising attack. Therefore if you play advantage, no yellow.

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

 

[JamesL]

Let’s also remember the OP: “…he commits a foul in the Mexican defending half”.

TBH shocked by this thread.

For once law is clear.

It's probably not an SPA then... which is not really what we are debating, despite the title of the thread.

 

[JamesL]

I mean really why this thread. It is crystal clear.

Not stopping play for the 2YC/RC is an error on law. Don’t do it!

Yes it is crystal clear

However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

If the player is not cautioned it is not a second booking

 

[santa sangria]

Why do you think it's an error in law?

if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal