Concacaf Nations League

[RustyRef]

Yes, but a potential SPA challenge that might be a second caution doesn't warrant a sending off per-se. It might do, but it might not.

 

[Runner-Ref]

But the offence is SPA, which does not warrant a sending off

 

[socal lurker]

But the offence is SPA, which does not warrant a sending off

You seem hung up on this, and I still can’t figure out why. SPA as a second caution does result in a sending off. And the don’t-play-advantage language specifically includes send offs for a second caution. What point are you trying to maake?

if the tackle was reckless, there would be nothing to discus, as the Law would be crystal clear that advantage should not be played absent a good scoring opportunity. The only issue here is how the don’t-play-advantage language interacts with the itks-not-a-caution-if -the-ref-plays-advantage language. There is a different reason for each provision.

 

[Runner-Ref]

You seem hung up on this, and I still can’t figure out why. SPA as a second caution does result in a sending off. And the don’t-play-advantage language specifically includes send offs for a second caution. What point are you trying to maake?

if the tackle was reckless, there would be nothing to discus, as the Law would be crystal clear that advantage should not be played absent a good scoring opportunity. The only issue here is how the don’t-play-advantage language interacts with the itks-not-a-caution-if -the-ref-plays-advantage language. There is a different reason for each provision.

As has been shown in previous posts, you could probably sell it either way

But if you play advantage, then there is no SPA. The only person stopping the promising attack is the referee. Yes law mentions about second cautions on advantage, but it also states about playing advantage and not cautioning SPA. So I really don't see how it is as crystal clear as you make out.

If you're in the latter stages of a game and attacking team are chasing a goal; they'd much prefer a 3 on 2 attack as opposed to free kick and opponent sending off imo

 

[socal lurker]

As has been shown in previous posts, you could probably sell it either way

But if you play advantage, then there is no SPA. The only person stopping the promising attack is the referee. Yes law mentions about second cautions on advantage, but it also states about playing advantage and not cautioning SPA. So I really don't see how it is as crystal clear as you make out.

If you're in the latter stages of a game and attacking team are chasing a goal; they'd much prefer a 3 on 2 attack as opposed to free kick and opponent sending off imo

OK, I give up on interacting with you. You aren’t responding at all to what I actually wrote.

 

[Runner-Ref]

OK, I give up on interacting with you. You aren’t responding at all to what I actually wrote.

Well that'd a rather childish response.

The debate has proven that you could probably sell it either way. Law kind of contradicts itself, as it does in many other instances.

 

[JamesL]

You seem hung up on this, and I still can’t figure out why. SPA as a second caution does result in a sending off. And the don’t-play-advantage language specifically includes send offs for a second caution. What point are you trying to maake?

if the tackle was reckless, there would be nothing to discus, as the Law would be crystal clear that advantage should not be played absent a good scoring opportunity. The only issue here is how the don’t-play-advantage language interacts with the itks-not-a-caution-if -the-ref-plays-advantage language. There is a different reason for each provision.

The two statements are obviously very clear on their own

What makes them not is they aren't really in harmony with each other despite appearing as consecutive sentences in the book, albeit at the end and start of a paragraph.

As I said earlier, could have 2 different outcomes for identical scenarios and that's never going to sit well. The spirit of the law I feel leans towards allowing the promising attack to progress over stopping and sending off.

 

[RustyRef]

Another thought on this, we perhaps need to think about why the law was changed to say that if the referee plays advantage on a SPA foul there is no caution. That was that if advantage was played a promising attack hadn't been stopped as it had still happened.

What that effectively means is that if the referee plays advantage the offence is immediately nullified, it effectively didn't happen. I do get the argument that law says that advantage must not be played for a second caution, but for SPA there is no second caution. It definitely needs an update to the law to say that advantage must not be played for a challenge that would led to a second caution unless that challenge was SPA for an attempt to play the ball, but in the meantime I think spirit of the law is very much that play should be allowed to continue.

 

[socal lurker]

Well that'd a rather childish response.

The debate has proven that you could probably sell it either way. Law kind of contradicts itself, as it does in many other instances.

Seriously? You blatantly misstate what I’ve posted and disagreed with something I didn’t say. Makes it tough to have a conversation.

 

[socal lurker]

The two statements are obviously very clear on their own

What makes them not is they aren't really in harmony with each other despite appearing as consecutive sentences in the book, albeit at the end and start of a paragraph.

As I said earlier, could have 2 different outcomes for identical scenarios and that's never going to sit well. The spirit of the law I feel leans towards allowing the promising attack to progress over stopping and sending off.

Yup. That’s about what I posted above, too—looking at the reasons for the provisions, I completely agree on the spirit of the law.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Another thought on this, we perhaps need to think about why the law was changed to say that if the referee plays advantage on a SPA foul there is no caution. That was that if advantage was played a promising attack hadn't been stopped as it had still happened.

What that effectively means is that if the referee plays advantage the offence is immediately nullified, it effectively didn't happen. I do get the argument that law says that advantage must not be played for a second caution, but for SPA there is no second caution. It definitely needs an update to the law to say that advantage must not be played for a challenge that would led to a second caution unless that challenge was SPA for an attempt to play the ball, but in the meantime I think spirit of the law is very much that play should be allowed to continue.

Exactly my point

 

[santa sangria]

If someone motivated would like to ask IFAB…

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Another thought on this, we perhaps need to think about why the law was changed to say that if the referee plays advantage on a SPA foul there is no caution. That was that if advantage was played a promising attack hadn't been stopped as it had still happened.

What that effectively means is that if the referee plays advantage the offence is immediately nullified, it effectively didn't happen. I do get the argument that law says that advantage must not be played for a second caution, but for SPA there is no second caution. It definitely needs an update to the law to say that advantage must not be played for a challenge that would led to a second caution unless that challenge was SPA for an attempt to play the ball, but in the meantime I think spirit of the law is very much that play should be allowed to continue.

We seem to be concentrating on the offence in this case being a SPA, but that is not specified in the OP(?)

 

[socal lurker]

We seem to be concentrating on the offence in this case being a SPA, but that is not specified in the OP(?)

Do we even know that the R was going to caution? I think we’re talking about SPA because that is where there is a debatable interaction of 2 provisions in the law. Not much to talk about if it was reckless.

 

[one]

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?

I think I give the same response to what you gave BC.

Proceeding the text you kindly shared and in the same paragraph

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.

The "however" clause is to apply to when the sanction has to change and not for when not to play advantage.

Furthermore, the fact that the "no advantage for 2YC" clause comes immediately after "no YC for SPA advantage" clause, my logic says it Trump's it .

I doubt though ifab are clever enough to deliberately order the paragraphs to imply something or deliberately use the "however" clause to not make a 2YC. The whole thing can be used to justify two different outcomes.

I am in the don't play advantage and red card camp (even if it's a hard sale).

A couple of consideration swaying my vote:

Already mentioned, is it really advantageous to a team to give them a replacement SPA instead of one less opponent.

Majority of SPA advantages result in a lesser PA. Playing advantage is kind of helping the offending team in this context.

 

[RefereeX]

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.

Not ignoring any laws of the game. The promising attack is only stopped or interfered with when you blow the whistle to award the free kick. If the promising attack is still a possibility then no cautionable offence has been committed. You're not playing advantage and then going back to issue the 2nd caution because there is no 2nd caution to issue. That is what the law you're referring relates to.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Not ignoring any laws of the game. The promising attack is only stopped or interfered with when you blow the whistle to award the free kick. If the promising attack is still a possibility then no cautionable offence has been committed. You're not playing advantage and then going back to issue the 2nd caution because there is no 2nd caution to issue. That is what the law you're referring relates to.

In the OP the ball was in the Mexican half when the Honduran player committed the offence, which was said by the OP to be cautionable. As there is no clear goalscoring opportunity, the free kick and caution should have been applied.
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.

 

[RefereeX]

In the OP the ball was in the Mexican half when the Honduran player committed the offence, which was said by the OP to be cautionable. As there is no clear goalscoring opportunity, the free kick and caution should have been applied.
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.

I wasn't referring to the OP directly as I had not seen the incident and had no idea what the alleged caution was for...

 

[Runner-Ref]

In the OP the ball was in the Mexican half when the Honduran player committed the offence, which was said by the OP to be cautionable. As there is no clear goalscoring opportunity, the free kick and caution should have been applied.
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.

Tbf, the OP said it could have been cautionable, not that it was.

But was is a clear opportunity to score? Even if the attacking team were in their own half, if they had a 3 v 2 breakaway, this could easily be a clear opportunity to score. Especially at the higher end of the footballing pyramid.

I've not seen the incident in question, but the above is how I'm picturing the example in my head. Could well be incorrect.

 

[wazztie16]

Tbf, the OP said it could have been cautionable, not that it was.

But was is a clear opportunity to score? Even is the attacking team were in their own half, if they had a 3 v 2 breakaway, this could easily be a clear opportunity to score. Especially at the higher end of the footballing pyramid.

I've not seen the incident in question, but the above is how I'm picturing the example in my head. Could well be incorrect.

A clear opportunity, for me, is very close to goal, open goal, or 1v2 in the attacking teams favour. That sort of thing. Do you really want someone who's just committed a red card offence having the opportunity to commit another offence because the "clear opportunity" was beginning in the defensive half?

I wouldn't.