Law 12 Change 2018/19

[JH]

"Where 2 separate cautionable (YC) offences are committed in close proximity, both
cautions (YCs) must be issued;"

Can someone give me some context for this? As opposed to what?

 

[JH]

Jumped the gun on this, I should have kept reading. This is the explanation given:

"Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should
result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required
permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc."

However, I thought this was how it worked anyway? You don't just let someone off because they break the laws too quickly???

 

[RobOda]

However, I thought this was how it worked anyway? You don't just let someone off because they break the laws too quickly???

I think there's been some confusion over the years as to whether you can or cannot do two cautions on the bounce. I've seen it pop up on various forums and it throws a lot of people out. The clarification just makes it more explicit I think.

 

[JH]

I think there's been some confusion over the years as to whether you can or cannot do two cautions on the bounce. I've seen it pop up on various forums and it throws a lot of people out. The clarification just makes it more explicit I think.

Fair enough, I agree that it is rare to see it given.

 

[cwyeary]

Rob is correct. It's not an actual change but a clarification that this is allowed. In addition to the example given, it also clarifies that you can play advantage with the intent of cautioning the player and then have the same player commit another cautionable offense. The correct outcome is to caution the player twice and then send them off.

 

[Mintyref]

Always wished I'd had an opportunity to do this.........

 

[santa sangria]

I think the more common occurance SHOULD be when a player commits a reckless offence followed by dissent.

 

[Middle Man]

Is the rule of two offenses occurring at the same time and the more serious being penalised still in place? If so is it the restart that it applies to if a caution can be issued for two offenses?

 

[Peter Grove]

However, I thought this was how it worked anyway? You don't just let someone off because they break the laws too quickly???

This has been discussed many times on here and other fora. A point that has frequently been put forward (though it has usually not been the prevailing argument) is whether it is fair to issue two cautions to a player when he has committed the second cautionable offence without even knowing that he was going to be on a first caution. Most times (as I recall) the majority opinion has been in line with what the IFAB is saying here - that a player who commits two cautionable offences close together deserves two cautions.

 

[one]

Jumped the gun on this, I should have kept reading. This is the explanation given:

"Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should
result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required
permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc."

However, I thought this was how it worked anyway? You don't just let someone off because they break the laws too quickly???

I think there's been some confusion over the years as to whether you can or cannot do two cautions on the bounce. I've seen it pop up on various forums and it throws a lot of people out. The clarification just makes it more explicit I think.

I think the more common confusion for the vanilla flavour referee has been interpreting the two offences as happening "at the same time". The example used by IFAB has been in a number of tests and RA meetings over the years around my neck of the woods and the most common response has been you caution the more serious offence as they happened at the same time.