Here's one straight out of the "Laws of the Game test".
For context the player was shown a 2YC. He was also the same player who cleared the ball out for a corner which adds another wrinkle.
Advantage on DOGSO
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
Here's one straight out of the "Laws of the Game test".
For context the player was shown a 2YC. He was also the same player who cleared the ball out for a corner which adds another wrinkle.
Except the restart was not correct.
I'm not as convinced. The fact that the player was sent off is a coincidence, not a controlled consequence.
Had he not already been on a yellow, I would have serious concerns if this is a good enough advantage to justify not stopping play and giving red for DOGSO - yes it leads to a shot, but the keeper is well set and makes the save easily.
Had he not already been on a yellow, I would have serious concerns if this is a good enough advantage to justify not stopping play and giving red for DOGSO - yes it leads to a shot, but the keeper is well set and makes the save easily.
Did he not give the corner? I missed that!
*EDIT* I'm an idiot, should have been an IDFK when he played the ball again after the advantage...
Last edited:
Let's say you don't play the advantage and the attacker slides the ball into the net. He's 1v1 with the keeper and I'd hazard a guess that ANY professional attacker would back themself to score there.
The 1v1 was a better opportunity to score that the free kick that'd be 25 yards out. The referee can't be accou table for the attackers inability to beat the keeper in that scenario.
Had the DOGSO foul been in the area I'd agree with you, give the penalty and the red (provided we decide it's not a genuine attempt).
Did he not give the corner? I missed that!
*EDIT* I'm an idiot, should have been an IDFK when he played the ball again after the advantage...
I'm also an idiot apparently because I don't understand this?
Page 104 (23/24 LOTG).
If you play advantage and intend to go back and issue either a 2nd caution or a straight red you MUST stop play if the offending player gets involved in play again before the next stoppage. Restart is then an IDFK.
Last edited:
Thanks very much. I had totally forgotten this. Apparently so did the ref.
He's through on goal, how can it not be a good enough advantage? Aside from a good save by the keeper they would have stored. This is the point of the foul, there's no covering defender even close.
Had he not got the restart wrong this would have been text book refereeing.
Think he is just telling the offender that he is coming back for him. A lot of referees, myself included, shout the player's number after an advantage to make sure we don't lose him.
Last edited:
As rusty says if you are coming back to caution you really need to be communicating that 1) so the opposition don't take the law into their own hands 2) so the player isn't surprised to see a 3 card trick if they commit another yc foul or 3) in this case telling the player he is off and if he touches the ball it's an idfk as whilst correct in law who was expecting the ref to give one? No one and that's why nothing is made of it
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Interesting question. I don’t think that is the intent. I don’t think it is a new offense, per se, but the IFK is because the stoppage relates to the card being given for the prior offense. But the Laws could definitely be more clear here.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Great advantage IMHO and I thought the ref did a good job of pointing to communicate the booking was coming.
But to miss the IDFK in the box. Argh. That's a clanger!
But to miss the IDFK in the box. Argh. That's a clanger!
Fine. But the thinking in the post I replied to is completely flawed - the fact a yellow card in this case would happen to also result in a red doesn't mean we can change our assessment of what is/isn't a good advantage.
If it's a good enough advantage that downgrading to a yellow card alone would be acceptable then I have no issue with it. But that's not what was suggested - the fact the player was sent off either way was clearly part of why the other poster thought the advantage was a good one.
bester
RefChat Addict
Ifab have released Q&As saying.a player who re-enters without permission who, otherwise fairly, stops a promising attack will receive two yellow cards.
I'm not sure if this is current as they seem to flip flop their interpretation.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
The text you have quoted is in Law 12 (but not relevant in this discussion subject?)