A&H

When to show a red card? (Sin bin)

The Referee Store
OK so continuing that discussion I think wires may have gotten crossed.
I was referring to players not being able to take part in the game following 2 temporary dismissals, which ifab say the player is not usually shown a red card.
What they are saying that if a player commits an offense whilst already temporarily dismissed is shown a second yellow and dismissed.
Whilst not put down in law I am guessing that as the temporary dismissal has not worked then the player should lose the chance this gave them to get an extra caution and the original caution takes full effect and is essentially upgraded to a full caution
 
Simple, IFAB has not thought the full details of this through and don't have the complete details in the laws. So they make it up as they go.

The question is simple. Does two sin bins mean a red card and send off. This is not in laws. Ifab's answer, "not usually" what in heaven's sake does that mean. I guess if the minute of the second offence is even it's red, if it's odd it's not a red.

Why aren't these in laws so that we can apply them consistently. There were other scenarios we had discussed here and we didn't have proper answers for either.

FIFA made over four billion dollars profit last world cup and this is the laws they work with.

Well if you want the technical answer, do as you like because even IFAB doesn't know what the answer is.

One last thing while I am having a rant, the social media accounts of IFAB (tweeter and Facebook), have in the past given answers which directly contradicted the laws. Sometime they fix it and sometimes they leave it. Similar with email communications with IFAB.
 
A temporarily dismissed player who commits a cautionable (YC) or sending-off (RC) offence during their temporary dismissal period will take no further part in the match and may not be replaced or substituted

This is roughly all we have to go on
Personally, I'd be trying to put it through as a red card (second cautionable offence)
 
In my game today, I had cautioned a player for AA. After taking his name, he couldn't help himself but tell me what he thought of me. Yellow shown and off to the sin bin he was going. On his way he turned to applaud me. Shown another yellow and told he couldn't take further part in the game and couldn't be subbed.

But...….when inputting later on the WGS, the system wouldn't allow me to shown 3 yellows for the same player, had to put the third offence which was a dissent yellow as a red, then put the 2 offecnes down as dissent.

So in that respect makes sense to show the red (in future) for this scenario.
 
OK so continuing that discussion I think wires may have gotten crossed.
I was referring to players not being able to take part in the game following 2 temporary dismissals, which ifab say the player is not usually shown a red card.
What they are saying that if a player commits an offense whilst already temporarily dismissed is shown a second yellow and dismissed.
Whilst not put down in law I am guessing that as the temporary dismissal has not worked then the player should lose the chance this gave them to get an extra caution and the original caution takes full effect and is essentially upgraded to a full caution
It's a shame we have to guess but looking at the language of the 'modifications to the laws', the sanction for receiving two sin bins and a caution is identical to receiving a caution whilst serving a sin bin so it makes sense to show a red card in this situation as well.
 
Guidance from The FA is that a red card isn't shown unless two non-sin bin yellows are shown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
One last thing while I am having a rant, the social media accounts of IFAB (tweeter and Facebook), have in the past given answers which directly contradicted the laws. Sometime they fix it and sometimes they leave it. Similar with email communications with IFAB.

See this a lot, I assume some non-referee intern is running the account.

Scenario: Player enters without permission, and stops a promising attack without committing a foul.

Have seen IFAB say it's two yellows, then change their mind saying it's just a yellow for entering without permission and then later on have reposted the original saying it's two yellows :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
System B – temporary dismissal for some but not all cautions (YCs)*
• A pre-defined list of cautionable (YC) offences will be punished by a
temporary dismissal
• All other cautionable offences are punished with a caution (YC)
• A player who has been temporarily dismissed and then receives a caution
(YC) continues playing
• A player who has received a caution (YC) and then receives a temporary
dismissal can continue playing after the end of the temporary
dismissal period
• A player who receives a second temporary dismissal in the same match will
serve the temporary dismissal and then takes no further part in the match.
The player may be replaced by a substitute at the end of the second
temporary dismissal period if the player’s team has not used its maximum
number of substitutes but a player who has also received a non-temporary
dismissal caution (YC) may not be replaced or substituted
• A player who receives a second caution (YC) in the same match will be sent
off and takes no further part in the match and may not be replaced/
substituted

This is clear in my mind, the different language used between sent off and takes no further part.
Sent off = show a red card
Takes no further part = no red card.
 
See this a lot, I assume some non-referee intern is running the account.

Scenario: Player enters without permission, and stops a promising attack without committing a foul.

Have seen IFAB say it's two yellows, then change their mind saying it's just a yellow for entering without permission and then later on have reposted the original saying it's two yellows :rolleyes:
What's the actual answer? Are they classed as simultaneous offences?
 
It is only two cautions if it's SPA.

What if it is not SPA, and it is not a player but it is a substitute?
 
See this a lot, I assume some non-referee intern is running the account.
I think this is almost certainly true of the Facebook and Twitter accounts. For instance, although it wasn't a current laws question, there was one item on Facebook that I (and others) brought to their attention and which they subsequently corrected and apologised for. They had a "Laws History Trivia" piece where whoever was writing it came up with the fascinating (but totally untrue) 'fact' that between 1990 and 1997, a player could not be offside from a free kick.

I don't know who wrote that and whether they were an actual referee but it obviously wasn't anyone who had refereed in the '90's or they would have known that was incorrect. (There was a proposal that this be the case at one time and some experiments using this modification were conducted but it was never adopted into law.)

Speaking for myself, I haven't seen anything directly contrary to the laws (or totally inaccurate) in any of the emails I've received from the IFAB's Law Enquiries account and all the replies I've received have been from David Elleray, apart from one from Lukas Brud which was more of an administrative-type question than a direct laws query anyway.
 
Simple, IFAB has not thought the full details of this through and don't have the complete details in the laws. So they make it up as they go.

The question is simple. Does two sin bins mean a red card and send off. This is not in laws. Ifab's answer, "not usually" what in heaven's sake does that mean. I guess if the minute of the second offence is even it's red, if it's odd it's not a red.

Why aren't these in laws so that we can apply them consistently. There were other scenarios we had discussed here and we didn't have proper answers for either.

FIFA made over four billion dollars profit last world cup and this is the laws they work with.

Well if you want the technical answer, do as you like because even IFAB doesn't know what the answer is.

One last thing while I am having a rant, the social media accounts of IFAB (tweeter and Facebook), have in the past given answers which directly contradicted the laws. Sometime they fix it and sometimes they leave it. Similar with email communications with IFAB.

Don’t confuse Revenue with Profit @one
 
Do I need a 152 page document to explain to me the difference?

We are not talking about their annual or overall profit. We are taking one event.

Anyway all that is beside the point of my post.
 
Do I need a 152 page document to explain to me the difference?

We are not talking about their annual or overall profit. We are taking one event.

Anyway all that is beside the point of my post.
Well, you are normally the one correcting us lot so I thought that it was only fair dinkum to return the favour! 😂
 
A temporarily dismissed player who commits a cautionable (YC) or sending-off (RC) offence during their temporary dismissal period will take no further part in the match and may not be replaced or substituted

This is clear in my mind, the different language used between sent off and takes no further part.
Sent off = show a red card
Takes no further part = no red card.

Although, based on how you say you understand it that would be wrong. :confused:

The LOTG clearly say "takes no further part in the match" above yet, surely you'd show a red card to a sin-binned player guilty of VC/OFFINABUS etc James? ;)
 
Although, based on how you say you understand it that would be wrong. :confused:

The LOTG clearly say "takes no further part in the match" above yet, surely you'd show a red card to a sin-binned player guilty of VC/OFFINABUS etc James? ;)
Yes. True. poorly written. Why not just say Sent off, which it does elsewhere.
 
Back
Top