Concacaf Nations League

[Runner-Ref]

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.

But they haven't committed a red card offence. If you don't blow and play on, no yellow card offence has occurred- as @RefereeX has said.

As @JamesL said earlier in the thread; had player not been on a yellow, you'd play advantage. But because they are on a yellow, you wouldn't. That is largely inconsistent and goes against what football would expect.

 

[JamesL]

If someone motivated would like to ask IFAB…

I've had a go..suspect they will say referee has to consider x y z and not commit but let's see.

Question asked:


"Dear IFAB

In the Advantage section of law 12 it says the following (emphasis my own as part of my question).

"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.

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. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence."

Question:
A player, that has already received a caution in a match commits a careless foul, that interferes with/stops a promising attack.

There is an opportunity to play advantage, but not a clear opportunity to score.

The referee has to make a decision on which provision, highlighted above, takes precedence.

What action should the referee take?

Playing advantage would mean the player is not cautioned. However, the law says that advantage should not be applied in cases involving a second caution-able offence, but it only becomes a caution if the referee stops play and doesn't play advantage.

The two provisions don't seem to work well together and i wondered if there was an order of preference in this scenario for these 2 provisions?"

Answer to follow on receipt.

 

[santa sangria]

I've had a go..suspect they will say referee has to consider x y z and not commit but let's see.

Question asked:


"Dear IFAB

In the Advantage section of law 12 it says the following (emphasis my own as part of my question).

"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.

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. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence."

Question:
A player, that has already received a caution in a match commits a careless foul, that interferes with/stops a promising attack.

There is an opportunity to play advantage, but not a clear opportunity to score.

The referee has to make a decision on which provision, highlighted above, takes precedence.

What action should the referee take?

Playing advantage would mean the player is not cautioned. However, the law says that advantage should not be applied in cases involving a second caution-able offence, but it only becomes a caution if the referee stops play and doesn't play advantage.

The two provisions don't seem to work well together and i wondered if there was an order of preference in this scenario for these 2 provisions?"

Answer to follow on receipt.

You are a wonderful human

 

[Runner-Ref]

You are a wonderful human

I'd beg to differ. He uses Lynx Africa deodorant

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Good luck with IFAB, @JamesL. This whole saga really hinges on whether the potential second caution was for SPA, which seems doubtful as the offence was in the other half.
My understanding of the OP was that it was an offence which may have warranted a caution, but not necessarily SPA.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Incident starts at 11:40

 

[RefereeX]

Incident starts at 11:40

I'm not entirely convinced that warrants a caution anyway which deems the whole discussion as irrelevant anyway haha. But hopefully IFAB give a response and we can learn something here...

 

[JamesL]

A faster than normal reply.

Think they have stepped around the question. I will probe some more.

 

[JamesL]

Good luck with IFAB, @JamesL. This whole saga really hinges on whether the potential second caution was for SPA, which seems doubtful as the offence was in the other half.
My understanding of the OP was that it was an offence which may have warranted a caution, but not necessarily SPA.

I think the discussion has evolved from the OP... I haven't seen the clip and am debating theoretically.

 

[RefereeX]

I think the discussion has evolved from the OP... I haven't seen the clip and am debating theoretically.

Which is exactly what I was doing also.

View attachment 7001

A faster than normal reply.

Think they have stepped around the question. I will probe some more.

No... it doesn't clarify anything

 

[Runner-Ref]

I think the discussion has evolved from the OP... I haven't seen the clip and am debating theoretically.

Agreed, it definitely went away from the clip (not sure why none of us bothered to search it until now,though!)

They've definitely misunderstood the question

 

[one]

I've had a go..suspect they will say referee has to consider x y z and not commit but let's see.

Question asked:


"Dear IFAB

In the Advantage section of law 12 it says the following (emphasis my own as part of my question).

"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.

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. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence."

Question:
A player, that has already received a caution in a match commits a careless foul, that interferes with/stops a promising attack.

There is an opportunity to play advantage, but not a clear opportunity to score.

The referee has to make a decision on which provision, highlighted above, takes precedence.

What action should the referee take?

Playing advantage would mean the player is not cautioned. However, the law says that advantage should not be applied in cases involving a second caution-able offence, but it only becomes a caution if the referee stops play and doesn't play advantage.

The two provisions don't seem to work well together and i wondered if there was an order of preference in this scenario for these 2 provisions?"

Answer to follow on receipt.

I feel the Q was a little loaded. See my highlight Though I think IFAB missed it

I think removing the bit I highlighted would have made the question completely neutral.

 

[socal lurker]

Agreed, it definitely went away from the clip (not sure why none of us bothered to search it until now,though!)

They've definitely misunderstood the question

I don’t think they misunderstood the question. I think they just gave a mushy answer. Not playing advantage is the simple choice, and certainly isn’t wrong. Advantage is in the opinion of the ref, and if the ref doesn’t choose to play advantage, the 2CT is easy. The fouler Can’t complain, as he he committed the SPA, and the offended team isn’t likely to complain as they are a man up from the call. So unless it is a high likelihood of scoring advantage (which would overcome not playing advantage re a send off), it is definitely the easy decision to make. And it may well be the wisest course the vast majority of the time—even for those of us (like me) who think an alternative result is permissible (and perhaps technically preferable).

 

[RustyRef]

Someone at IFAB is currently having splinters removed from their derriere caused by spending so long sitting on the fence.

 

[Viridis1886]

I'd beg to differ. He uses Lynx Africa deodorant

But only to clean his cards. Other than that it's a mixture of China clay and moorland herbs from Bodmin Moor.

 

[JamesL]

I'd beg to differ. He uses Lynx Africa deodorant

Debate the post. Not the Poster.