Jay Rodriguez Red card Restart?

[GraemeS]

Here is a hypothetical. What would the referee have done if the shot had gone in?

What would the comments here be? Great advantage right?

Absolutely valid and relevant question. I can't imagine any referee disallowing the goal and insisting they take the FK because he's "not allowed to play advantage on a RC" - which I think does call the decision to bring play back into question.


However it's an easy sell in this case, so you can't blame him for going for that, even though it did essentially give them two chances from a single foul.

 

[JamesL]

I suppose an additional consideration is when does the referee stop play?
If the ball is still in play he can only really take it back to the DFK. Just because we see the ball be kicked out doesnt mean play hasnt already stopped. I can only imagine the AR is screaming down the mic VC VC VC and I just cant imagine the referee waiting to see how play develops from there really.
@one I cant agree that these are the same offences. The referee cant have seen it otherwise he would have stopped play (well.he probably wouldnt jad he seen it but not sure that is up for debate) Its a secondary offence he hasnt seen. He is playing advantage from the foul before the "incident". I get your theory, that makes sense, but this is two incidents imo.

 

[Andy A]

I'm happy to see that my thread has brought up a good point.

To all those saying that the referee didn't see the 'stamp' pause the video exactly where it is supposed to have happened, to me it looks clear as day that the ref saw it but chose to play on.

In my opinion the assistant dropped him in the brown stuff and he had no choice but to send off Rodriguez even though he thought it was an accident - which it was.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Trolling again?
He's right, you can't. LOTG used to have guidance of a few seconds, doesn't now but that's never changed.

But you know this, given the experience you claim you have.

Lack of troll here, just pointing out the factual errors in your post for benefit of newer referees.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Lack of troll here, just pointing out the factual errors in your post for benefit of newer referees.

Tosh. You said in page 1 that you were trolling.
Also, given I didn't comment before you didn't point out errors in my post.
Also, they're not factual errors - they're errors in your opinion, or interpretation. Don't overstate them to falsely strengthen your argument.
Finally, you're wrong anyway - you're not doing anything for the benefit of newer referees. Rather, you're trying to mislead any newer referees.

Why, is beyond me because I know you certainly don't believe whatever it is you're posting on here.

 

[ASM]

Pack it in you 2!

 

[AlexF]

The "directive" from our FA here in Canada is 3-5s for advantage. I believe that there is an identical directive in the US.

Of course, we (in Canada) are also under the directive to not signal until advantage accrues, and then not to bring it back once signaled (similar to the higher levels in England).

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

[REMOVED]

I cannot possibly think of a scenario where 6 seconds is acceptable.

2-3 seconds at most has always been the guideline. (and used to be written in the additional advice) If you're getting up to 6 seconds, you needed to make a decision one way or another.

[Edited out]

 

[ASM]

@Ciley Myrus @CapnBloodbeard

If I have to deal with this thread any further due to your respective postings you will both be taking a period away from the boards. PACK IT IN

 

[RobOda]

The "directive" from our FA here in Canada is 3-5s for advantage. I believe that there is an identical directive in the US.

Of course, we (in Canada) are also under the directive to not signal until advantage accrues, and then not to bring it back once signaled (similar to the higher levels in England).

Interesting.

I've not been told any directive like that in Wales, but I'm not high up the ladder anyway. At my stage they're just happy if you apply the advantage law correctly full stop I think.

 

[Kes]

I think I personally would have restarted with the DFK in this instance.

Question is though, having (presumably) seen something in the challenge and elected not to penalise but instead play advantage, which was followed through and would have resulted in the GK at the end of the move, is it not fair to say that the referee has inadvertently awarded another advantage to the attacking team by restarting with the DFK? My gut tells me that this is not right somehow ... (?)

 

[one]

I think I personally would have restarted with the DFK in this instance.

Question is though, having (presumably) seen something in the challenge and elected not to penalise but instead play advantage, which was followed through and would have resulted in the GK at the end of the move, is it not fair to say that the referee has inadvertently awarded another advantage to the attacking team by restarting with the DFK? My gut tells me that this is not right somehow ... (?)

And that was the point I was making. Even if the foul he played advantage for was a different 'event' to the one he sanctioned for, we all know had the shot later (after three phases of play and 6 seconds later) had gone in he would have awarded the goal and in all likelihood also sent off the offender.
Now the shot has not gone in, he is giving them another chance (as @GraemeS explained.)

 

[Kes]

And that was the point I was making. Even if the foul he played advantage for was a different 'event' to the one he sanctioned for, we all know had the shot later (after three phases of play and 6 seconds later) had gone in he would have awarded the goal and in all likelihood also sent off the offender.
Now the shot has not gone in, he is giving them another chance (as @GraemeS explained.)

Yeah, I see that now. Doh! Lol.

Note to self: Read every response before approaching keyboard ....

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's a weird one. And I see the argument that the stamp was a separate foul that was missed.....and SFP shouldn't have advantage unless it's basically an OGSO.

I wonder if it was a YC if the ref would have gone back......