You play advantage from a shirt pull/slight trip etc that qualifies at stopping a promising attack - do you then go back and caution the offender? Because by playing the advantage, they haven't stopped the attack? In the same logic as unsuccessfully handling to prevent a goal is a caution, not a dismissal.
YC for SPA
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
But as mentioned above the laws of the game give you the ability to still caution because it says interferes with or stops. The trend at the top level seems to be moving away from cautioning when you play an advantage successfully (assuming it's not reckless of course). However, if a shirt pull or push is so blatantly unfair and you still play advantage, I think you can justify it being unsporting behavior.
I've waited 2-3 minutes after an advantage to the next break in play..... You feel like the policeman in the next lay-by thats got a ticket ready for the oncoming speeding driver!! It's only a matter of time till you dispense justice!! 
Should've re-read before I asked...
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
No but it it is supported by the spirit of it, the IFAB and something they are looking at incorporating into the law.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Not sure i follow the logic of cautioning for Stopping Promising Attack if the Promising Attack is not Stopped. In addition to penalty or a goal, do we need to caution if the advantage leads to an OGSO for example.
Maybe caution for USB, otherwise we're potentially cautioning for something which hasn't happened (although SPA might have been attempted)
Maybe caution for USB, otherwise we're potentially cautioning for something which hasn't happened (although SPA might have been attempted)
Because in Law, you're not cautioning for STOPPING a Promising Attack, but for Stopping OR Interfering in a Promising Attack
By the Laws, this is what you're cautioning for.
I realize that your reporting tools call it something different, but in the Laws, SPA is one of the (many) reasons for a USB caution.
If a Promising Attack remains a Promising Attack (or OGSO, or Pen or Goal), the interference must have been ineffectual and 'Stopping' is not even a consideration. The attacking team retain their SPA, yet also get an opponent cautioned and this doesn't seem to in the spirit of the game. This logic doesn't apply if there are any aggravating aspects to the SPA (e.g. RP), but i don't think we should search hard for reasons to caution, when a warning might suffice
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
It’s ”interferes...” or... how many timed guys... read the line in the LotG again,
With this spirit stuff you are just ignoring what’s clearly in the laws (lord I feel padfootitus is infectious)!
one
RefChat Addict
The laws have many clear statements which cover more than (or less than) what they intend to do. For example until a couple of years ago a substitute was allowed to take a free kick. These problems happen when changes to laws are made in response to specific incident(s). The wording of the change is not completely thought through and the consequences for other situations are not considered. Another example was the change to when a penalty is complete after time is extended to take it. We all knew why the change was made but the wording implicated that in some circumstances a goal can be scored at the opposite end without the referee being able to legally stop it. The law was clear.
I can see why you would want to go by the wording of the law as is now and I am more or less the same. That is why I got some clarifications from powers that be to ensure I am not inventing my own law.
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
You asked the IFAB about Dogso. The conversation above is about SPA.The laws have many clear statements which cover more than (or less than) what they intend to do. For example until a couple of years ago a substitute was allowed to take a free kick. These problems happen when changes to laws are made in response to specific incident(s). The wording of the change is not completely thought through and the consequences for other situations are not considered. Another example was the change to when a penalty is complete after time is extended to take it. We all knew why the change was made but the wording implicated that in some circumstances a goal can be scored at the opposite end without the referee being able to legally stop it. The law was clear.
I can see why you would want to go by the wording of the law as is now and I am more or less the same. That is why I got some clarifications from powers that be to ensure I am not inventing my own law.
one
RefChat Addict
The quote was about the wording of the law and how the spirit can apply. It's exactly the same principle. DOGSO wording is clear in that situation there should be no downgrading (so is SPA). However the spirit of the law requires no card (neither does SPA).
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
bester
RefChat Addict
Quote in context is here, post 24. Read it as you will
https://refchat.co.uk/threads/crystal-palace-v-liverpool.12090/page-2#post-125085
In that thread @one said the spirit of the law only applies when there was an attempt to play the ball.
I could get behind that in principle but it's not covered by the current law. The OP in this thread asked about a shirt pull.
Any change in the law needs careful wording e.g. play an advantage for reds on a SPA, ball is in play
for the next two minutes and then reds score. Caution or not?
https://refchat.co.uk/threads/crystal-palace-v-liverpool.12090/page-2#post-125085
In that thread @one said the spirit of the law only applies when there was an attempt to play the ball.
I could get behind that in principle but it's not covered by the current law. The OP in this thread asked about a shirt pull.
Any change in the law needs careful wording e.g. play an advantage for reds on a SPA, ball is in play
for the next two minutes and then reds score. Caution or not?
Last edited: