Why is there no yellow card for a player fouling an attacker, but not stopping a promising attack?

[newref]

Clarification needed. If a player is fouled but stays on his feet as he is trying to continue a promising attack and the referee plays advantage, Why is there no yellow card for the offending player after the ball goes out of play? The point I’m trying to make is that the advantage may still have been on but the defending player has slowed down the attacker in the attack and gained few yards making the advantage less of an advantage (if that makes sense). Surely the offending player should be punished for this? But no nothing. Why?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

Clarification needed. If a player is fouled but stays on his feet as he is trying to continue a promising attack and the referee plays advantage, Why is there no yellow card for the offending player after the ball goes out of play? The point I’m trying to make is that the advantage may still have been on but the defending player has slowed down the attacker in the attack and gained few yards making the advantage less of an advantage (if that makes sense). Surely the offending player should be punished for this? But no nothing. Why?

It's a horrendous law - if you believe a caution/FK is better than an advantage, I'd stop play. In that situation it needn't be a hard sell.

 

[socal lurker]

The theory is that the referee would not have played advantage unless there was still a promising attack. Therefore the player has not denied a promising attack.

Note that there was also a change in SPAA in the past few years. It used to be that SPAA only applied to fouls that were committed for the purpose of stopping a promising attack. They changed to fouls that in fact interfere with a promising attack, regardless of purpose. In other words, an "innocent" foul can be SPAA. Cautioning an innocent foul for SPAA when advantage is played does seem harsh; cautioning a cynical foul when advantage is played, however, does not seem inappropriate to me at all. I would have preferred that there was discretion for the referee on this, depending on the nature of the SPAA foul--but I can't think of a recent amendment that is designed to enhance referee discretion; recent law changes all seem aimed at enhanced specificity and consistency.

 

[GraemeS]

Clarification needed. If a player is fouled but stays on his feet as he is trying to continue a promising attack and the referee plays advantage, Why is there no yellow card for the offending player after the ball goes out of play? The point I’m trying to make is that the advantage may still have been on but the defending player has slowed down the attacker in the attack and gained few yards making the advantage less of an advantage (if that makes sense). Surely the offending player should be punished for this? But no nothing. Why?

You've just described why it's not a good advantage. If he's tripped and staggers enough that the advantage goes away or is significantly reduced, you shouldn't be allowing them to play on, you should be stopping and cautioning. Possession =/= Advantage.

 

[one]

@newref I'm going OT. I am curious when you write an email do you write all or most of your email in the subject line?
You win the prize for the longest thread topics in this forum by a country mile .

 

[Mr Dean]

If advantage is played, a player can't be cautioned for stopping a promising attack; however, a referee may decide that a cynical foul which makes an attack less promising (but does not stop the attack) is unsporting behaviour and worthy of a yellow card.

 

[Mr Dean]

I would have preferred that there was discretion for the referee on this, depending on the nature of the SPAA foul--but I can't think of a recent amendment that is designed to enhance referee discretion; recent law changes all seem aimed at enhanced specificity and consistency.

A little birdie tells me that referees are about to get a bit more discretion with the handball law for next season.

 

[PinnerPaul]

If advantage is played, a player can't be cautioned for stopping a promising attack; however, a referee may decide that a cynical foul which makes an attack less promising (but does not stop the attack) is unsporting behaviour and worthy of a yellow card.

Of course, promising attack or not, if referee decides the challenge is reckless, advantage or not, its a yellow.

 

[RefIADad]

While this is a pretty simplistic interpretation of the new SPA(A) decision tree, this is how I've been going down that decision tree.

1) If the foul stops a promising attack, it's a caution regardless of the nature or intent of the foul.
2) If the foul does NOT stop the attack and I give advantage, then:
2A) If the foul would have been a caution regardless of whether I played advantage, then I am going back to caution it.
2B) If the foul is not a foul worthy of a caution except for that it would have stopped a promising attack, then I will not caution at the next
stoppage.

So 2A and 2B mean for me that if a foul is a reckless or a cynical foul worthy of USB independent of any consideration of SPAA, I'll still come back and caution it.

 

[one]

While this is a pretty simplistic interpretation of the new SPA(A) decision tree, this is how I've been going down that decision tree.

1) If the foul stops a promising attack, it's a caution regardless of the nature or intent of the foul. Unless the nature of the foul warrants a send off in which case it is a send off.
2) If the foul does NOT stop the attack and I give advantage, then:
2A) If the foul would have been a caution regardless of whether I played advantage, then I am going back to caution it.
2B) If the foul is not a foul worthy of a caution except for that it would have stopped a promising attack, then I will not caution at the next
stoppage.

So 2A and 2B mean for me that if a foul is a reckless or a cynical foul worthy of USB independent of any consideration of SPAA, I'll still come back and caution it.

Fixed number one for you . Pretty much what I follow as well.

 

[RefIADad]

Fixed number one for you . Pretty much what I follow as well.

Fair point. But if the foul is a send off, 999 times out of a thousand I'm never getting past 1). The one time I will is if the team going up a man has a clear goal-scoring opportunity (as in it's either an open net or a 1 on 1 with the keeper), then I'll let that chance happen before sending the player off.