Advantage on DOGSO
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
As @ChasObserverRefDeveloper notes, that isnāt quite the same. But I think the question here arises from continuous IFAB tinkering to try to āfixā minor things (āgee, itās not fair if the guy who was sent off were to score a goal before the red is given!ā) without always thinking through the different ramifications. The LOTG have been steadily evolving from a philosophical guide for referees to exercise in the moment judgment to a cook book that tries to manage every eventuality. But for every weird situation they āsolveā they seem to create additional potential issues.
How do you know what I was thinking?
Regardless of whether it's a 2nd yellow or not, the attacking team have a clear goalscoring opportunity as a result of the advantage. My comment about the 2nd yellow is valid though, neither team is going to argue this decision and, apart from the incorrect restart, it's excellent refereeing.
bester
RefChat Addict
I'll ask about whether the second yellow for non-foul SPA after eg re-entering without permission is current as well!Maybe one to ask IFAB and see what they say. They must love us on here.
You keep bringing it up for a starter!
In this case it's probably inconsequential because the advantage is perhaps clearer than I gave it credit for on first viewing. But for a more borderline call, we should be avoiding thinking like this, because it will lead to the wrong decision.
If we're refereeing based on outcomes then I could definitely make a case it was a bad advantage - because a goal wasn't scored! Obviously that's nonsense, because we don't referee on outcomes. And I would extend that logic to anyone defending the advantage on the basis that the player was sent off anyway: we shouldn't be making decisions based on the fact the outcome is the same regardless.
I mentioned it once and then defended myself...
At no point have I said I'm basing my decision on the outcome. I'm basing it on a solid advantage. You can try to change the scenario to suit you or you can use your eyes and see the clear advantage.
Agree with that completely. But the initial 2 line post consisted of one line praising the referee and the other line discussing the outcomes. It's not really a massive leap to think you might be drawing a connection between the two.I mentioned it once and then defended myself...
At no point have I said I'm basing my decision on the outcome. I'm basing it on a solid advantage. You can try to change the scenario to suit you or you can use your eyes and see the clear advantage.
I would have perhaps agreed with you under the old laws, as there was a danger the player committing the foul would then go on and create or assist a goal down the other end before you then send him off. That was absolutely impossible to sell as a credible decision, but now that play is stopped as soon as he touches the ball there is zero chance of that happening. Why should the attacking team have a very clear advantage with an obvious chance to score denied just to suit the referee's needs, that wouldn't be right.
one
RefChat Addict
I also had a feeling that giving a IFK here is not quite the right thing and not smoothing the law intended and had to dig into it further. With the current wording, IFK is just the restart after the the game is stopped by the referee (not the punishment). Because the game was not stopped by the referee for the player's play involvement, IFK should not apply.
While the wording requires the referee to stop play, the reason to do it does not apply here and I think it was within the spirit of this law for the referee not to stop play. The change was introduced in 16-17 and the reason behind it clearly does not apply here.
While the wording requires the referee to stop play, the reason to do it does not apply here and I think it was within the spirit of this law for the referee not to stop play. The change was introduced in 16-17 and the reason behind it clearly does not apply here.
one
RefChat Addict
This really is unchartered territory. The play to clear the ball was a legitimate play by a player entitled to play the ball under normal advantage circumstances (or even in this case). Is turning this into a IFK in front of goal justified? You can say yes or no but as per my previous post punishing the subsequent play by the player was not the intent of this law change.
In other words it's not an offence to play the ball in this circumstance and hence there shouldn't be a punishment for it. IFK is only the restart, had the referee stopped play. It may as well have been a dropped ball but I guess ifab thought IFK made a lot more sense without thinking through it.
Let say a similar circumstance but the said player doesn't play or interfer until the defending team is well in possession of the ball with all opponents on or near their own half. Said player is on his goal line and is passed the ball by a team mate and plays it. IFK in front of goal? Keep in mind in everyone's mind this is a legitimate play. And only the referee knows he will be a send off player.
In other words it's not an offence to play the ball in this circumstance and hence there shouldn't be a punishment for it. IFK is only the restart, had the referee stopped play. It may as well have been a dropped ball but I guess ifab thought IFK made a lot more sense without thinking through it.
Let say a similar circumstance but the said player doesn't play or interfer until the defending team is well in possession of the ball with all opponents on or near their own half. Said player is on his goal line and is passed the ball by a team mate and plays it. IFK in front of goal? Keep in mind in everyone's mind this is a legitimate play. And only the referee knows he will be a send off player.
I think in this case yes.
I think, and that's the important bit here as a lot is left to inference, the intent of the law is so that a player, who is about to be sent off for an offence that is committed can have no further impact, positive or otherwise, until the ball is out of play and the red card can be administered. It's important as referees we communicate this fact, if we're aware, and we have to be otherwise we don't get the ifk anyway so it is less of a surprise.
Their involvement in the game, however minor, could lead to one of the 3 things in the explanation happening.
What say you if, in your scenario, he receives the ball on the goal line, then pings a perfect 75 yard ball to his team mate who scores? And then you have to send him off.
I think you might be right that a dropped ball is a better outcome, but presently the law is an idfk and I don't really see any argument with the text that is left in the law to do anything other than stop play and restart with an idfk. This is far easier to explain with what law says than trying to convince an angry manager or observer that the law makers meant something totally different to what they wrote.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
agree. I think this is a clear example of IFAB not thinking through all of the ramifications of what they added, resulting in some potential scenarios with very poor unintended effects. Stopping play in a neutral space followed by a DB would be a much better solution.
Feels very much like a ātest caseā. One of those āoh bloody hell now whatā moments we all get once or twice a career.
It *feels* like soon as the ball was cleared just after the save towards the halfway like that a dropped ball and bin off the defender would workā¦ but againā¦ opens up more avenues for challenging what the game expects vs what IFAB say must happen.
Letās not forget though that the defender had committed an offence, then shouldnāt be getting involved againā¦ so from my POV what feels in the spirit of the game or āfairā isnāt all that important. If the restart is a IDFK 8 yards out, then his team are just gonna have to suck that up and deal with it, and Law will back you up.
Not a refās fault they saw something and acted upon it as per Law. Is the fault of the person who committed the offence.
Where should the indirect free kick be taken from? Free kicks are taken from where the offence occurred. Playing the ball by the sent off player is not an offence and Law 12 does not specify where the IFK should be taken from. Therefore, shouldn't the IFK be taken from where the original sending-off offence occurred in accordance with Law 13?
one
RefChat Addict
Given that there is no mandate to do this comms, what happens if we don't? As referees our job is, as is pretty much the reason behind LOTG (safety and admin aside) is to restore balance. In OP player committed offence advantage played to turn a distant one on one opportunity with a defender on your tail to a closer one one one opportunity and no other defender. Definite advantage and a good one. Defender is also being sent off later. Balance restored. Adding a IFK in front of goal for me is over balancing to the attackers.
In my example there defiantly is an over balance to the attackers and I don't think may argue that. In your extension there is really no easy way to manage a proper balance without going against the current laws.
I think the part I highlighted is not true. There is nothing in law that says he shouldn't be getting involved. He my post that by merely getting involved he hasn't actually committed an offence.
one
RefChat Addict
Great question. I think the expectation, and IFAB's intent when they added this was from the location where interference happened. But even they would be hard pressed to say that subsequent play of the ball was an offence.
If this was to take place from the location of the original offence then why IFK, shouldn't it be for whatever the offence was? and if so it's basically play advantage but bring it back for the original offence possibly 20 seconds or even minutes later. Can of worms.
There is no mandate for referees to do any Comms at any point except to signal a decision. For example persistent offending. Universally referees warn a player that they are close and what will happen. Same with the same scenario in OP but a first yellow.
However, both scenarios can happen without prior warning/Comms.
It's not our fault the players don't know the law but I'd guess 99% hand on heart would expect the referee to be coming back with a card here so the player should know what happens if he gets involved. (Perfect world I know.)
I do think the restart is wrong and should be changed, perhaps a suggestion to IFAB, but until then I don't see any wiggle room in the current law other than to do what it says, which is to stop play and restart with idfk from the position of interference. Doing anything else leaves us open to making it up as we go along. Imagine it happening twice in one game. You gave one as idfk and the other as not. You ain't coming away from that smelling of roses.
Have to look after yourself and the easiest way to do that is to say I did what I did because here's what the laws of the game say.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Except that, in most cases, the original offense was a DFK offense, so we aren't going back to that offense or we'd be giving an IFK/DFK. IFAB "solved" for one highly unusual scenario by creating potentially weird unintended impacts.
An interesting thought on the play that took place. We stop play to prevent involvement (but it isn't an offense). If the R doesn't stop play (perhaps because he didn't realize it was that player who kicked the ball), until the ball is out of play, is there an IFK? The point of the IFK is that a restart is needed. If the ball is out of play before the R acts, there is no new restart needed. I'm not sure that re-starting with a TI was incorrect. (Again, it was not an offense that happened that we need to go back and punish.)
one
RefChat Addict
If you are being specific to the OP then yes, the player should know it was at least a yellow card. But there are many cases that players would just expect a foul only to realise it was a card, at best has to guess it may be a yellow. And to expect players to know the laws of this much obscurity which the referee here missed and we are debating the merit of is a bit too much to expect me thinks
I see what you are saying about twice in one game and I wont have no problem selling the OP as TI and the second occasion as a TI. I didn't stop play in OP so restart as natural play. If I stop play its restart is IFK.
Both paragraphs are basically what I am saying. For the first one IFAB chose something as what they thought was a good alternative solution because the obvious solution of going back to the original offence would have opened a can of worms.
On the second paragraph, was also my point in my post #29. If the referee doesn't stop play (in this case not deliberate but it could well be deliberate) then the IFK restart doesn't apply.