RefSix

Benevento vs Roma

wazztie16

Level 7 Referee
Level 7 Referee
Second yellow card for Glik in the 57th minute, having been booked in the first half, but the ref plays advantage on the second yellow before coming back.

Mistake by the ref, or have I missed something? As I only thought you could play advantage on a red on a clear goalscoring opportunity type situation.

I saw the incident live and thought it was odd at the time.

1:44 for the RC incident

 

Degnann

SFA Ref
Level 6 Referee
Seems like a good advantage to me as the ball is near the box.

here is the thing thats missed though. Glik is the one that clears it so it should be an IDFK in the box.
 

Jtpetherick1

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
Second yellow card for Glik in the 57th minute, having been booked in the first half, but the ref plays advantage on the second yellow before coming back.

Mistake by the ref, or have I missed something? As I only thought you could play advantage on a red on a clear goalscoring opportunity type situation.

I saw the incident live and thought it was odd at the time.

1:44 for the RC incident


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.

Seems pretty clear to me...
 

wazztie16

Level 7 Referee
Level 7 Referee
I wouldn't have said it was a CGSO, that to me would be the ball moving forward to another attacker with an open goal for example.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
RP not SPA
He's saying shouldn't have played advantage as law says only play advantage for CGSO when an act of SFP, VC or (as in this case) SBO.

The only get out here is if playing advantage for SPA, which is then no card but I am not sure the offence is SPA here if I am honest.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I don't really get the inclusion of second cautionable offence in that clause of law. I think it's strange that it is there for a couple of reasons.

1. Dissent for example as a second yellow can't be advantages but offinabus towards the referee (far worse incident) can be advantaged.

2. There is a conflict. If the second yellow is a spa then you can't play advantage, but if you do play advantage it will not be a yellow. What do I do?

I think, as usual, this law is badly worded. It's intent is not to play advantage on situations where there is a very high chance of match control being compromised. SFP and VC are clearly those and second yellow would only be a case where it's a reckless physical challenge in some situations. Afterall the law (or football) doesn't want to punish the opponents of the team that has commited an offence.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
This to me is another case of trying to be overly prescriptive and binary. And I believe the language precedes the no-SPAA caution on advantage--and no one thought about the impact of changing SPAA. But I think the answer is that since advantage means there isn't a caution, then there really isn't a conflict. And that makes sense, as the whole point of it is to not have a "sent off" player on the field where more bad things could happen.

(Holy smokes, I just started three sentences in a row with conjunctions. . . poor old Father McFadden (my freshman English teacher) must be spinning in his grave . . . .)
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
But I think the answer is that since advantage means there isn't a caution, then there really isn't a conflict.
Disagree with this. Yes, advantage means there isn't a caution but the law says there shouldn't be advantage. And since we have opened up the can of worms, advantage should be played when the opponent team benefit from it. While they benefit from continuing the promising attack having been fouled on it (if first yellow), would they still benefit if not playing advantage meant a fee kick and one less opponent? Obviously other factors like time of game are important but given the chance almost every team would take a free kick into the box and one less opponent over the promising attack in almost every case.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
More generally, I'm not thrilled with the idea of the laws prescribing that we treat first and second caution offences differently. I know in reality most referees have a higher bar for a second caution, but historically I don't think that been supported in law - we're supposed to treat each offence on it's merits and caution appropriately. Which also means, we're not obliged to referee a game while keeping a mental log of who's already on a caution.

This requirement in law changes that - we have to know at any given moment if a player has already been booked and if they then commit a further cautionable offence, act differently in the moment by refusing to play an advantage in most cases. Forgetting at any given moment if a player is one who has been booked or not can therefore lead to a decision that is wrong in law - either stopping play because you thought it was a 2nd yellow when it wasn't, or allowing play to continue when you should have stopped to issue the 2nd yellow. Unnecessary complexity.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Disagree with this. Yes, advantage means there isn't a caution but the law says there shouldn't be advantage. And since we have opened up the can of worms, advantage should be played when the opponent team benefit from it. While they benefit from continuing the promising attack having been fouled on it (if first yellow), would they still benefit if not playing advantage meant a fee kick and one less opponent? Obviously other factors like time of game are important but given the chance almost every team would take a free kick into the box and one less opponent over the promising attack in almost every case.

I think this is one of the great unanswered questions as to what advantage means. I think that advantage is supposed to apply to the flow of the game, not to discipline. But I don't think that has ever been made clear one way or another. If we are supposed to consider the discipline, then things get messy really quickly. IMHO, with respect to SPAA, it being a second caution has no bearing--if advantage is there, then play advantage and the miscreant gets lucky. I don't think IFAB expects us to consider how many minutes are left, how good the player is, the score of the match, etc., in deciding to play advantage.
 
Top