A&H

SPA & DOGSO

JH

RefChat Addict
Logical question:

Why is it that if we were to apply advantage to a DOGSO-red situation, we would downgrade the sanction to a caution. Whereas applying advantage to SPA still requires a caution at the next stoppage?

I understand that an OGSO is not denied if we play advantage (correctly) and that is why it is not a dismissal.
I also understand that the laws say it is a caution to interfere with a promising attack.

Why is one intended to be downgraded and not the other?
 
The Referee Store
The law says "interferes with or stops a promising attack". If you feel the foul didn't do either, then you are not obligated to caution the player at the next stoppage.
 
I gave you the answer. You're not required to caution if it didn't actually stop a promising attack. In fact, if you're playing advantage, you're pretty much saying the promising attack wasn't stopped.
 
1. When you play advantage, you are not saying they are in a better attacking position then their original attacking move. You are saying they are better off continuing with play than a free kick. So despite playing advantage, the foul quite possibly has put the promising attack in a worse off position and the caution is for that.

2. The ultimate attacking move ends in a goal. If in a DOGSO you play advantage and a goal is scored, then there is no doubt the attacking team could not have been better off, so the downgrade. If you play advantage on a SPA and a goal is not scored, then you still don't know if the original attack could have ended up in a goal. That's why you should still caution. EDIT: If you play advantage on SPA and a goal is scored, then "No caution is required".

Below is also relevant here.

1548349488487.png
 
I gave you the answer. You're not required to caution if it didn't actually stop a promising attack. In fact, if you're playing advantage, you're pretty much saying the promising attack wasn't stopped.
You said if you didn't think the foul interfered with a PA then you don't need to caution. I said when it did interfere.
 
the foul quite possibly has put the promising attack in a worse off position and the caution is for that.

If you play advantage on a SPA and a goal is not scored, then you still don't know if the original attack could have ended up in a goal. That's why you should still caution. EDIT: If you play advantage on SPA and a goal is scored, then "No caution is required".
Makes sense.

I gave you the answer. You're not required to caution if it didn't actually stop a promising attack. In fact, if you're playing advantage, you're pretty much saying the promising attack wasn't stopped.
I suppose a better question is, what constitutes 'interference' and are all fouls during a promising attack 'interference'?
 
From the man himself:
1548359643994.png
1) A foul during a promising attack is not always interference.
2) A goal doesn't downgrade a caution for SPA.
 
Elleray's response to @one predates the law change (or was it a clarification) explanation in the summer that says if advantage is played on a DOGSO situation then a yellow should be shown whether or not a goal is scored.
At least he's stopped with his 'spirit of the game' waffle.
 
Elleray's response to @one predates the law change (or was it a clarification) explanation in the summer that says if advantage is played on a DOGSO situation then a yellow should be shown whether or not a goal is scored.
At least he's stopped with his 'spirit of the game' waffle.
Good point, didn't notice the date. I am surprised a caution is still to be issued if a goal is scored from a SPA advantage.
 
It may change in future, does take them a while to realise the macro implications of some of their changes.

Hadn't even noticed 'tactical purpose' had disappeared from the SPA blurb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
Elleray's response to @one predates the law change (or was it a clarification) explanation in the summer that says if advantage is played on a DOGSO situation then a yellow should be shown whether or not a goal is scored.
At least he's stopped with his 'spirit of the game' waffle.
Actually the email predates the law change/clarification which was introduced in 16/17 version of law. There has been further changes to that clause since which has removed the "results in a goal" requirement for a downgrade but doesn't precisely reflect the response he gave me in the email.
 
Back
Top