Completely difference question/scenario.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.
YC for SPA
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
I agree with your point if it was a shirt pull, i.e., it doesn't deserve a downgrade. The downgrade should only apply to an attempt to play the ball in the case of SPA which I failed to mention in my previous posts. The OP was not specific to only a shirt pull.
In response to your question, my best response would be to apply a downgrade if a goal came from that specific attack. If goal was not scored then that promising attack was stopped. Any goal scored later is from a different attack and unrelated to this incident.
Its a fantastic question though for a DOGSO. Apply advantage for a shirt pull in an OGSO and a goal is not scored immediately but two minutes later. Do you send off or not?
Correct. Different scenario but same principle. DOGSO vs SPA, downgrading sanctions if attempt is proven to be unsuccessful and the foul was an attempt to play he ball.
bester
RefChat Addict
Yellow card currently. When you play advantage on a DOGSO it's a yellow card whether a goal is scored or not.
Explanations for the law amendments makes it clear.
"If the referee plays advantage for a DOGSO and a goal is scored it is a YC but technically if no goal results the Law said it should be a RC. This is never applied and is not seen as ‘fair’ as applying the advantage effectively means that a goal-scoring opportunity remains; consequently, a YC is the fairest sanction, whether or not a goal is scored. "
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
One still no citation about downgrading SPA if there’s a goal.
The LotG is clear...
“commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack except
where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt
to play the ball”
If the laws meant us to downgrade SPA YCs on goals it would say so. The caveat in the law is in line with Dogso, anything more is an invention.
I look at it the other way. The spirit of the game is to caution for stopping a promising attack with a foul. It’s in the laws, it’s fair, it’s a basic part of the game. If you want to invent an excuse not to caution, that’s against the spirit of the game IMHO.
The LotG is clear...
“commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack except
where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt
to play the ball”
If the laws meant us to downgrade SPA YCs on goals it would say so. The caveat in the law is in line with Dogso, anything more is an invention.
I look at it the other way. The spirit of the game is to caution for stopping a promising attack with a foul. It’s in the laws, it’s fair, it’s a basic part of the game. If you want to invent an excuse not to caution, that’s against the spirit of the game IMHO.
If Lord Elleray says it shouldn't be a caution, it shouldn't be a caution.
I joke of course, but there is an element of spirit of the game here. If a team has just conceded a goal do you really need to go back and give them a double punishment for issuing a caution for SPA that clearly didn't SPA as the other team scored. Can you imagine the discussion - "what's the card for", "you stopped a promising attack", "no I didn't, they scored". Sometimes you have to look beyond the laws, after all they say the keeper can't hold the ball for more than 6 seconds but you don't apply that rigidly.
I joke of course, but there is an element of spirit of the game here. If a team has just conceded a goal do you really need to go back and give them a double punishment for issuing a caution for SPA that clearly didn't SPA as the other team scored. Can you imagine the discussion - "what's the card for", "you stopped a promising attack", "no I didn't, they scored". Sometimes you have to look beyond the laws, after all they say the keeper can't hold the ball for more than 6 seconds but you don't apply that rigidly.
one
RefChat Addict
There is no citation from the law. I thought I made it clear. It's the whole reason we are having this debate. I am saying despite it not being in the wording, it is in the spirit of law12. And I made the reference to the IFAB email as an example of something similar which is not in the wording of the law, and it should be applied because it's in the spirit of it. Were going around circles with this.
Perfect, here is another reason to downgrade the SPA situation when applying advantage. "as applying the advantage effectively means that a" promising attack "remains; consequently" no card is the fairest outcome.
The card would actually be for 'interfereing" with a promising attack but in principle what you say is why I wouldn't caution. It's not what the law makers intended.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
(Except I think it is what law makers intended, unril the law makers change the law)
bester
RefChat Addict
The explanations specifically state it shouldn't be downgraded, if they weren't you could say it was an oversight and continue to argue the spirit of the law intended something different to what's stated in the main body of the LOTG. As is....
These explanations must have been signed off by Mr Elleray, unless he's asleep on the job like he was with RA expenses scandal.
These explanations must have been signed off by Mr Elleray, unless he's asleep on the job like he was with RA expenses scandal.