deusex
RefChat Addict
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/29/you-are-the-ref-paul-trevillion
I just PRAY he's simply misread number 3!
I just PRAY he's simply misread number 3!
Totally agree that IF you can find a way to interprete this in a way other than dissent, then allowing the substitution is a better way to go. Of course this is a made up scenario but I'm just struggling with how someone 'losing control and storming off' would be anything other than clear and obvious dissent by action ....If it can be interpreted either way then the one that helps match control is the way to go. In this instance sending the player off is going to cause a whole lot of unnecessary headache which can be avoided by just accepting the substitution which has a better outcome for everyone including yourself.
...his marker barges him into an offside position
I'm obviously missing something judging by the prevailing opinion here. However my reading is thus:
Ergo he was actually onside, and he has been forced offside by a foul, not by the marker/defender stepping up legitimately to play him off, and this is where the advantage came from. Had he not been fouled, he would not have ended up offside and play would continue anyway.
The only legitimate way to play an attacker offside is to step up. This is why a defender off the FOP behind the goal line is counted as being on the line for offside purposes - it prevents a sneaky step-off "'I'm not the last defender anymore" scenario.