A&H

Concacaf Nations League

RefIADad

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
From the "something you don't see every day" file.

Concacaf Nations League quarterfinals second leg between Mexico and Honduras. Denil Maldonado of Honduras is on a yellow at 94'. In the 115th minute, he commits a foul in the Mexican defending half of the field but advantage appears to be played. Could have been a caution, which would be his 2CT. He then gets up, sprints about 70 yards, and proceeds to commit a clear SFP tackle from behind/rake on the Achilles and earns (and I mean EARNS) his straight red card.

That would be quite the write up in the match report if Ivan Barton was going to card Maldonado for the first foul, then sent him off for serious foul play.
 
The Referee Store
Surely a mistake to advantage a 2nd YC in the opponent’s half. RC advantage only if imminent chance to score. Major error?
 
santa sangria said:
Surely a mistake to advantage a 2nd YC in the opponent’s half. RC advantage only if imminent chance to score. Major error?
Click to expand...
Depends what the SBO is for...

SPA > Advantage = No Card. So you're technically not playing advantage on a SBO.

But then is playing advantage a benefit to the attacking team if by not doing so you reduce the opponents numbers by 1.

Minefield.
 
The 2CT was borderline. Most of us watching and commenting on a US based forum THINK it would have been a caution, but no way to really know if it WOULD have been a caution. At the end of the day, Mexico got the benefit of the play. They got a free kick 25 yards from goal and a Honduran player sent off. I'm not good at taking screen clips of plays, but if I have time today I'll try to do one of those.

My personal opinion was it was brilliant refereeing, showing a feel for the game and eventually getting a SFP red card and a clearly more advantageous situation for the fouled team. Mexico had numbers and space for a great counterattack. Maldonado appeared to commit the SFP/"second" foul in an act of "I'm going to stop this attack, no matter what it takes - even if I'm sent off." But unless we see the match report and it says something to the effect of "I would have issued a second caution to Maldonado, but he committed SFP anyway", we'll never really know. It was just something I'm not sure I've really seen live either attending a match in person or watching on TV.
 
My initial thoughts were similar to James. If the caution was going to be for stopping a promising attack rather than a reckless tackle then it would no longer be a caution anyway because the advantage was played and hence the promising attack not stopped.

Haven't seen the incident though.
 
JamesL said:
Depends what the SBO is for...

SPA > Advantage = No Card. So you're technically not playing advantage on a SBO.

But then is playing advantage a benefit to the attacking team if by not doing so you reduce the opponents numbers by 1.

Minefield.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I think the law is crystal clear. Game should have been stopped at the 2nd YC as there was not an imminent goalscoring chance. Surely it’s an error in law.
 
But if it is for SPA and advantage can be applied then there is no cautionable offence as the promising attack wasn’t stopped…
 
RefereeX said:
But if it is for SPA and advantage can be applied then there is no cautionable offence as the promising attack wasn’t stopped…
Click to expand...
Which, on my understanding, is trumped by what Santa Sangria has written above. Law lists 3 considerations for playing advantage on a dismissal. SPA isn't one of them.
 
wazztie16 said:
Which, on my understanding, is trumped by what Santa Sangria has written above. Law lists 3 considerations for playing advantage on a dismissal. SPA isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
But it'd not a dismissal if you play advantage.
 
wazztie16 said:
Which, on my understanding, is trumped by what Santa Sangria has written above. Law lists 3 considerations for playing advantage on a dismissal. SPA isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
This is a bit of a chicken-egg question. i don’t agree that the considerations for dismissal are what matter here. The point of those considerations are that we don’t want a player on the field who is going to be sent off unless there is a really good reason. The SPA/advantage “relief” from the caution (which I disagree with, but IFAB didn’t ask me) is on the theory that if advantage is applicable, the PA wasn’t actually stopped, so there isn’t a cautionable event. Put together, I think that means advantage is still proper on what would be a SPA caution, even if it is a 2CT.

the other lurking issue--and I’ve never seen any actual guidance on it—is whether, on considering advantage, the R is supposed to consider disciplinary impact, or only impact on play. If disciplinary impact is considered, then it would put a much higher requirement to have advantage on SPA that would be a 2CT. (Also impacts DOGSO advantage.) I *think* the idea is that we only consider impact on play and aren’t supposed to include the impact of disciplinary measures if advantage is applied, but I can’t prove it from any authoriTy.
 
My interpretation, for what it's worth (and that's not a lot) is that it only becomes a cautionable offence when the promising attack is stopped. That only happens when you've blown the whistle and awarded the foul. Until this there is no cautionable offence, therefore you would still play the advantage and not issue a caution, regardless of the potential disciplinary impact.
 
RefereeX said:
My interpretation, for what it's worth (and that's not a lot) is that it only becomes a cautionable offence when the promising attack is stopped. That only happens when you've blown the whistle and awarded the foul. Until this there is no cautionable offence, therefore you would still play the advantage and not issue a caution, regardless of the potential disciplinary impact.
Click to expand...
Yep, this is how I read it as well.

I understand what some people have said about not playing advantage on a red card offence, and this is correct. However, technically the offence would be caution. It just happens that the caution was a second one in this instance. If its SPA, carry on. If its reckless, you've got the get out clause to stop play and issue the second caution
 
Runner-Ref said:
Yep, this is how I read it as well.

I understand what some people have said about not playing advantage on a red card offence, and this is correct. However, technically the offence would be caution. It just happens that the caution was a second one in this instance. If its SPA, carry on. If its reckless, you've got the get out clause to stop play and issue the second caution
Click to expand...
The provision of Law 12 about advantage expressly applies to a second caution.
 
So, overlooking the very clear conflict this seems to be creating in terms of interpreting these provisions.

I think we need to come at it from a spirit and fairness point of view.

Take 2 Exactly the same scenarios for opposing teams in the same match.

Promising attack, clear advantage situation.

Team A = offender not on yellow card = advantage no sanction

Team B = offender on yellow card = Stop play and sanction, 2nd yellow = Red Card.

Good luck having that conversation with Team Bs coach after the game...

In terms of perception and balance you've totally lost it. The whole of football expects the same situations to have the same outcome. And the laws give us the opportunity and freedom to do so.
 
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.

That's pretty clear is it not?
 
Big Cat said:
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.

That's pretty clear is it not?
Click to expand...
Yes it is. But I think the bone of contention is that if the player can keep on going unaffected by the challenge, was it SPA? I'd say it wasn't, therefore it can't be a cautionable offence

Or at least thats what I think we're discussing :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Cat said:
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.

That's pretty clear is it not?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's clear, but the argument is, at the time the tackle is made, if an advantage is playable then the player hasn't actually committed a cautionable offence because he has not stopped the promising attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top