A&H

DOGSO (HB) scenario

santa sangria said:
I can't find that in the laws...
Click to expand...
Good pick up. Neither can I. I made that assumption based on what I saw in UCL final.

This means the caution was not for SPA since as justy said, the option of caution is removed for SPA only (or the referee erred in law).
 
The Referee Store
Genuine question, where is that in Law? It may just be that IFAB have worded it in their usual roundabout way but I cannot see anywhere in the 20/21 laws that an advantage for SPA results in the inability to caution.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
Genuine question, where is that in Law? It may just be that IFAB have worded it in their usual roundabout way but I cannot see anywhere in the 20/21 laws that an advantage for SPA results in the inability to caution.
Click to expand...
Advantage
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.
 
one said:
Good pick up. Neither can I. I made that assumption based on what I saw in UCL final.

This means the caution was not for SPA since as justy said, the option of caution is removed for SPA only (or the referee erred in law).
Click to expand...
I think it was a SNAFU
 
It's a 20-21 law change--in 19-20, the caution was still proper even if it was for SPAA. Was UCL applying the 20-21 Laws? I thought the competition started before the magic date, but some of the matters (e.g., handling) were considered clarifications, not changes and were being used. So it may have been proper, even if the caution was SPAA.
 
socal lurker said:
Was UCL applying the 20-21 Laws?
Click to expand...
Yes - as of the resumption they were. Somebody mentioned this the other day and I have to say I was dubious about it but having checked, I found there is a statement on the UEFA website that they would be applying the 20/21 Laws in the resumed competitions.

Here's an extract from an article published August 3, 2020.
A series of amendments to football's Laws of the Game will be implemented in UEFA’s competitions when they resume this week.

The amendments, sanctioned by football's lawmakers, the International Football Association Board (IFAB), came into effect on 1 June 2020, the official start of the international 2020/21 football season.
Click to expand...
Roberto Rosetti explains new law amendments
 
Makes sense as they were hosted as mini tournaments with a changed format, so whilst they were a resumption of the pre covid competition they changed the competition rules which I guess gave the opportunity to move into he new laws too
 
Is it possible that “blatant holding” (I know, not in the LotG but communicated by the bodies as YC) is not an SPA offence and that would be justification for advantage-YC in this case?
 
It was certainly a breakaway attack and it had all the hallmarks of a SPA. But with USB being open ended , the referee can justify it on something not in the book or one of other existing USB reasons like the generic "shows a lack of respect for the game"

santa sangria said:
I think it was a SNAFU
Click to expand...
Go on then. Tell us what's a SNAFU.
 
one said:
It was certainly a breakaway attack and it had all the hallmarks of a SPA. But with USB being open ended , the referee can justify it on something not in the book or one of other existing USB reasons like the generic "shows a lack of respect for the game"
Click to expand...

I think that makes sense. And i really think the SPAA no-caution should have been more akin to the DOGSO yellow in forgiving non-cynical SPAA fouls. Plays like the one we are discussing certainly deserve a caution even if advantage is applied.
 
socal lurker said:
I think that makes sense. And i really think the SPAA no-caution should have been more akin to the DOGSO yellow in forgiving non-cynical SPAA fouls. Plays like the one we are discussing certainly deserve a caution even if advantage is applied.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the blatant ones, like the one we are discussing, we can hammer off as reckless anyway without the need for bringing IWPA into the equation.
 
Yes, yes and yes. But the question is why are we finding workarounds for what should already be spelt out in law 12?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top