Second yellow during one advantage?

[one]

Yes the law is clear but also inconsistent and strange. SFP and VC you can understand. Let's look at a couple of other secnarios.

Player commits SPA for a second yellow, ball falls to another attacker with still a good promising attack (not clear opportunity for goal). You could play advantage and yellow card later for interferes with promising attack later. But the law says you can't, you have to stop play and take the opportunity away from the attacking team.

Player blatently spits at an opponent with ball in play which is almost certainly going to lead to a brawl yet the law allows playing advantage on.

The point is most cautionable offences (for second caution) are less severe than spitting or many cases of OFFINABUS yet you have a choice of playing advantage on those two but not on second yellow.

 

[santa sangria]

Yes the law is clear but also inconsistent and strange. SFP and VC you can understand. Let's look at a couple of other secnarios.

Player commits SPA for a second yellow, ball falls to another attacker with still a good promising attack (not clear opportunity for goal). You could play advantage and yellow card later for interferes with promising attack later. But the law says you can't, you have to stop play and take the opportunity away from the attacking team.

Player blatently spits at an opponent with ball in play which is almost certainly going to lead to a brawl yet the law allows playing advantage on.

The point is most cautionable offences (for second caution) are less severe than spitting or many cases of OFFINABUS yet you have a choice of playing advantage on those two but not on second yellow.

Do you really think the intention of the wording of the law here is to omit spitting or OFFINABUS?

I think you are trolling a bit here. It's not ideal wording is it, but surely it's clear that we should avoid playing advantage on any red card unless there is a clear goalscoring opportunity... I realise this is reverse pedantry (if that's a thing)... surely that's logical, sensible, no?

 

[one]

Do you really think the intention of the wording of the law here is to omit spitting or OFFINABUS?

I think you are trolling a bit here. It's not ideal wording is it, but surely it's clear that we should avoid playing advantage on any red card unless there is a clear goalscoring opportunity... I realise this is reverse pedantry (if that's a thing)... surely that's logical, sensible, no?

Absolutely and that is the way it should have been written. "surely it's clear that..." surely it is not that clear because the law has been written a different way .

No trolling. Just pointing out inconsistencies in law and if you have been in the forum long enough you'd know it's kind of my thing

 

[Peter Grove]

Player blatently spits at an opponent with ball in play which is almost certainly going to lead to a brawl yet the law allows playing advantage on.

Interestingly enough, when spitting was first made into a sending-off offence in 1968, it was considered as violent conduct.

From the minutes of the IFAB AGM of that year:



It remained that way until 1997 (by which time it had become decision 11 to Law 12) and was one of many IFAB decisions that were removed from the laws document as part of an effort to tidy up and shorten the laws (much like the 2016 rewrite).

I'm not sure whether the intent was that it was not supposed to be considered as violent conduct any more or just that by then, everyone knew it was a sending-off offence anyway so it no longer had to be specified.

 

[Ryan4]

This is wrong.

Funny, the same thing happened on a Tournaments Abroad Facebook post. Someone posted the same thing and wouldn't accept being corrected.

It is an error in law to play advantage on a second yellow unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal.

It’s not an option. The law is clear. Quoted above.

I stand corrected, it does apply to second cautions as well. Thanks for pointing that out @santa sangria and @Peter Grove. It appears that I can't read

 

[Redster]

Interestingly enough, when spitting was first made into a sending-off offence in 1968, it was considered as violent conduct.

From the minutes of the IFAB AGM of that year:

View attachment 2984

It remained that way until 1997 (by which time it had become decision 11 to Law 12) and was one of many IFAB decisions that were removed from the laws document as part of an effort to tidy up and shorten the laws (much like the 2016 rewrite).

I'm not sure whether the intent was that it was not supposed to be considered as violent conduct any more or just that by then, everyone knew it was a sending-off offence anyway so it no longer had to be specified.

Excellent history lesson! Spitting is assault - I would consider it violent conduct. Striking is considered violent conduct, even though it is separately mentioned, along with spitting, in the LOTG.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

skip to 45 secs to see how advantage is played with a player on a yellow....

 

[santa sangria]

So, this came up today during a colleague's video review, and there was a disagreement about the law - I would appreciate some help...

Today: classic breakaway foul on the wing, but the attacker carries on, ref plays advantage, it's an easy yellow SPA to come back for. (AR is close and does well not to flag - wanted to but waited for advantage.)

But attacker carries on into the box, same defender recovers to catch him and climbs/pushed him over from behind, easy pen, easy yellow.

Ref gives the pen and the yellow for the penalty foul.

->Should this be double yellow?
One senior ref said no, as it didn't stop the promising attack. The "interferes with or" part of the law was pointed out but he said it wasn't interference as the attack carried on unaffacted.

 

[socal lurker]

Even putting aside the double yellow issue, I'm not too enthusiastic for a SPA caution if advantage is applied (similar to how DOGSO downgrades to SPA if advantage is applied). But it is certainly permissible in Law, as the only exception in going back is the downgrade to a caution for DOGSO. In practical terms, I would probably only go back for a SPA if it was a really blatant effort to stop the attack and made the attack (while still better than the FK to justify advantage) not as promising as it would have been but for the foul. So to go back to the pay described, I think the R made a good choice, as the attack was still promising enough to generate the ensuing PK.

 

[santa sangria]

Even putting aside the double yellow issue, I'm not too enthusiastic for a SPA caution if advantage is applied (similar to how DOGSO downgrades to SPA if advantage is applied). But it is certainly permissible in Law, as the only exception in going back is the downgrade to a caution for DOGSO. In practical terms, I would probably only go back for a SPA if it was a really blatant effort to stop the attack and made the attack (while still better than the FK to justify advantage) not as promising as it would have been but for the foul. So to go back to the pay described, I think the R made a good choice, as the attack was still promising enough to generate the ensuing PK.

Is the idea of an advantage foul "making the attack less promising" correct in law - is that we are supposed to understand by "interferes with a promising attack"?

 

[socal lurker]

Is the idea of an advantage foul "making the attack less promising" correct in law - is that we are supposed to understand by "interferes with a promising attack"?

With the clarity of IFAB drafting, how could you possibly have any doubt what they intend?

I think of it this way. If it could only apply if you stopped the promising attack, "interferes" wouldn't be needed. So what does interfere mean, if it means something less than than stopping? Seems to me it has to mean making it less promising than it was. And since they don't carve it out in going back for a caution for SPA (like they did for DOGSO send off), it has to be (at least in some circumstances) proper to go back and caution for SPA after playing advantage.

 

[one]

I think something along the lines of @socal lurker . This is another case of the law makers intending something and simplifying the wording of it however expecting us to understand what they intended.

I think the reason "interfere with" was put in there was for law to give a way of allowing the referee to continue play (advantage) promising attack or not, but the didn't want a yellow card if a significant promising attack still existed after advantage was played.

In the case of the OP I would say because it lead to a penalty, almost certainly that would nullify the first caution requirements based on what i think the law was intended.

The only time I would go back for a yellow regardless of promising attack continues or not is if it is a blatant USB case like a blatant shirt pull or a blatant handball (like a goal keeper diving save).

 

[Russell Jones]

The only time I would go back for a yellow regardless of promising attack continues or not is if it is a blatant USB case like a blatant shirt pull or a blatant handball (like a goal keeper diving save).

Think this is an entirely sensible approach. Also, however, whenever you're playing an advantage and will be 'going back' for a caution, it's best practice to communicate this VERY clearly both to the player involved and to everyone else as well. That way, when you pull out the first (of two) yellows and point to the place of the original offence, no one is confused by what you are doing

 

[santa sangria]

I get the impression that "interferes with" is then a really weak and vague part of the LotG that should be clarified and fixed.

TBH I would like a straight answer based on the LotG but is there one?

 

[socal lurker]

I get the impression that "interferes with" is then a really weak and vague part of the LotG that should be clarified and fixed.

Fortunately, it's the only one.

TBH I would like a straight answer based on the LotG but is there one?

Sure: If in the opinion of the referee the foul interfered with a promising attack, the referee can give a caution.

 

[santa sangria]

By my reckoning I can justify any action that is is an offence as interference. Offence = interference. No offence = no interference.

Any reason or guidance why this is not supported in law?

 

[Redster]

I think you could, and should, read 'interference' as requiring an effect. I think you might be thinking of an 'attempt' to interfere. It can happen, for instance with a challenge that misses its target but is still careless.

 

[one]

By my reckoning I can justify any action that is is an offence as interference. Offence = interference. No offence = no interference.

Any reason or guidance why this is not supported in law?

Are we still talking 'promising attack'?

Assuming you do then the law already says "commits a foul which...". Now as I mentioned earlier if your assertion is true, even if you play advantage you would have to caution every time which IMO it does not intent to be the case. I wish it was as simple as what you say though.

 

[bester]

If it’s a cynical attempt to SPA then it should be a yellow irregardless of whether an advantage was successfully applied.

‘Interferes with’ is sufficiently imprecise to give the referee the option of using some common sense.

 

[JamesL]

In terms of interfering and stopping a promising attack can you really commit both in the same promising attack?
I dont think I could support a double yellow on this one.