A&H

Chelsea V Sheffield United

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
Interesting one and first time I've seen it applied in a game.

Chelsea player pulled back. Moss gives free-kick and it's a clear yellow card but Chelsea take free-kick quickly and have a promising attack.

Moss allows play to continue and delays caution until next time ball goes out of play.

Good refereeing I think.

One thing I did think - if Moss had been able to play vantage to begin with and attack had continued without him blowing the whistle then it presumably wouldn't have been a yellow card.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The Referee Store
Apart from if that is what happened it is incorrect in law. I know the one you mean where Berge pulled back Kante, as clear a case as you are ever going to see for SPA. But in allowing the free kick to be taken quickly the new law this season prevents him from going back to caution for SPA ...

Delaying the restart of play to show a card

Once the referee has decided to caution or send off a player, play must not be restarted until the sanction has been administered, unless the non-offending team takes a quick free kick, has a clear goal-scoring opportunity and the referee has not started the disciplinary sanction procedure. The sanction is administered at the next stoppage; if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned; if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.


Given where it was on the pitch I would also question whether there was even close to a "clear goal-scoring opportunity".
 
there's a full other thread on this exact topic and people cannot agree on this very thing. We obviously won't know what Moss cautioned for but it does prove that you can indeed caution for it.
I was in that category in the other thread of cautioning for USB even if it was SPA.
 
Given where it was on the pitch I would also question whether there was even close to a "clear goal-scoring opportunity".
I think I am done on the part about being wrong in law to caution for a reason other than SPA.

However this part is interesting. Should he have allowed a quick free kick here? For me the answer is yes and because of the intend of the law. Another prefect example of law makers saying something but meaning something else. If the explaination is better than the law, why not use it instead of the law. The explanation clearly allows a QFK for a promising attack.

Screenshot_20201108-110454.jpg
 
On a plain reading of the text, if a challenge both stopped a promising attack, and was reckless to the danger to an opponent, if a QFK was taken the referee could not return and caution the player.

It is more absolute than the advantage carve outs, but it can't be what they meant. Surely.
 
Apart from if that is what happened it is incorrect in law. I know the one you mean where Berge pulled back Kante, as clear a case as you are ever going to see for SPA. But in allowing the free kick to be taken quickly the new law this season prevents him from going back to caution for SPA ...

Delaying the restart of play to show a card

Once the referee has decided to caution or send off a player, play must not be restarted until the sanction has been administered, unless the non-offending team takes a quick free kick, has a clear goal-scoring opportunity and the referee has not started the disciplinary sanction procedure. The sanction is administered at the next stoppage; if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned; if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.


Given where it was on the pitch I would also question whether there was even close to a "clear goal-scoring opportunity".

Oh, we're doing this again!
 
On a plain reading of the text, if a challenge both stopped a promising attack, and was reckless to the danger to an opponent, if a QFK was taken the referee could not return and caution the player.

It is more absolute than the advantage carve outs, but it can't be what they meant. Surely.
Missing the word was. As in, if the offence was stopping a....
Again poor wording/grammar
 
Back
Top