Dissent - Advantage - Sin Bin

[JamesL]

Not a real incident, but, could certainly happen. Be interesting to get members thoughts:

A player from Team A commits an offence of dissent, let's say by word, whilst his opponents from Team B are in a promising attacking situation.

Stopping play would take play back into Team Bs own half so the referee plays advantage to allow Team B to continue their attack.

This breaks down (it was a. Good advantage) and Team A counter attwck. The player who committed the offence scores/assists the goal.

Temporary dismissals are in operation in this match.

What would you do?

 

[snap_RL]

If we'd got all the way to the Dissenter scoring/assisting the goal, it's tricky to sell a Sin Bin for something that happened 2 minutes ago... I'd probably just let that go and have a quiet word with him.

I'd like to think I would have stopped the game when Team B's attack broke down, BEFORE Team A counter attacked. At that point, I would then send the player to the Sin Bin...

OR....

Does the Yellow card for dissent get downgraded to 'nothing' because you played an advantage? Much in the same way that fouls would be downgraded...

I'm going around in circles here. Nice scenario @JamesL

 

[Russell Jones]

@snap_RL has nailed it, you stop play as soon as the promising attack breaks down and caution / sin bin at that point.

Easier to sell the decision if you've shouted eg 'coming back for that #7' as you might do if someone commits a reckless foul in an unsuccessful attempt to stop a promising attack

 

[JamesL]

So, firstly, I am not in disagreement. After all how can we be, it isn't covered in law and is a spirit of game/football expects scenario.

But, consider, we played the advantage.

Advantage came to fruition, or at least, past a point we can't "go back to it".
The dissent has ceased, so the offence is no longer being committed.

How are you restarting play if you choose to stop it after the attack?

I'm going down the two bites of a cherry, we often use for DFK offences where we don't bring the play back.

Are you going to toss posession back to a team for an offence that perhaps happened 60-90 seconds ago and give them another go?

I suppose timing is everything. If its quick that solution is sellable, but if not, that's harder to sell and of course we don't yet know that offender is going to have such an impact.

If it was a foul, we would allow him to carry on and just caution after the goal but in this case we need to bin him...

I don't think there is an easy answer here. There are lots of solutions. Looking forward to some other suggestions.

 

[Tealeaf]

It’s a binary choice for me here.
If it’s a promising attack I’m likely following it, so the dissent drops way down my agenda. A subsequent follow up comment from me such as “Any more then you’re on the bin” after the ball is out of play.

Or, if it’s way over my threshold then I’m binning him straight away. Opposition were on the attack “Sorry guys, I had to deal with him straight away.”

 

[one]

@JamesL why would you say it's not covered in law? The general laws cover this. No need to cover specific scenarios if they are covered in general law. For example the dissenter had kicking the ball out is not specifically covered either, but general laws say you punish the dissent and restart with a throw in. It's a nice scenario you found and it's a lot more complex but concept is the same. I would call it a shortcoming in law rather than not covered. They fixed for a similar shortcoming for 'to be sent off players' only recently. You would stop play as soon as he touches the ball and start with IFK. But this doesn't apply to sin bins.

Just stopping play after attack is over would be contradicting the laws. Once you play advantage you can only stop play for a new offence. (or things like injury etc). Think if the offence was a reckless challenge. You don't stop play after attack is over. You'd only caution the player at the next 'natural' stoppage.

If you had signalled advantage and made it clear you are going back for the dissent (which I usually do), then you have a very difficult sell on your hands because of a shortcoming in laws.
Otherwise, and if you have hindsight, once attack is over you'd find a foul or another reason to stop play somewhere. Then you sin bin and restart for whatever NEW reason you stopped play. Without hindsight, I'd go with those who said go with a talk on the run.

 

[JamesL]

@JamesL why would you say it's not covered in law? The general laws cover this. No need to cover specific scenarios if they are covered in general law. For example the dissenter had kicking the ball out is not specifically covered either, but general laws say you punish the dissent and restart with a throw in. It's a nice scenario you found and it's a lot more complex but concept is the same. I would call it a shortcoming in law rather than not covered. They fixed for a similar shortcoming for 'to be sent off players' only recently. You would stop play as soon as he touches the ball and start with IFK. But this doesn't apply to sin bins.

Just stopping play after attack is over would be contradicting the laws. Once you play advantage you can only stop play for a new offence. (or things like injury etc). Think if the offence was a reckless challenge. You don't stop play after attack is over. You'd only caution the player at the next 'natural' stoppage.

If you had signalled advantage and made it clear you are going back for the dissent (which I usually do), then you have a very difficult sell on your hands because of a shortcoming in laws.
Otherwise, and if you have hindsight, once attack is over you'd find a foul or another reason to stop play somewhere. Then you sin bin and restart for whatever NEW reason you stopped play. Without hindsight, I'd go with those who said go with a talk on the run.

I felt its not covered because it sort of sits in between the 2 scenarios you mentioned.
Reckless challenge results in a caution at next stoppage (unless SBO and not an immediate GSO where law says advantage should not be played)
A send off, or to use another phrase dismissal, is covered and an idfk is awarded if the offender.

It is an extremely complex scenario, which is, of course, why I posed it to the group.

There are other complications above and beyond my scenario,such as if it will be his 2nd dissent, or 2nd dissent with another caution and an immediate GSO. You aren't sending him off, but he will be taking no further part so yes sensible to stop it but if you don't you leave yourself open to him playing some significant role in the match before his departure.

I personally like the idea of applying the send off procedure (idkf) but can't see a real basis for it in laws. But this would probably throw up timing issues. If he can't get involved in the game then had the TD technically already started?

Liking suggestions thus far folks
Still undecided about what I would do myself