A&H

YC for SPA

JH

RefChat Addict
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.
 
The Referee Store
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.
 
Pulling or holding is pretty much the definition of 'unsporting' I think, so I would happily come back and caution. I think, when it's particularly blatant, players expect the caution for the attempt as much as anything!
 
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!! :smoke:
 
The only time I would not caution for it is if it leads to a penalty or a goal. Otherwise it's a cation at next stoppage.
That’s not supported in law though is it?

If you have SPA advantage that you will YC, you should not be downgrading in the case of pen/goal.
 
That’s not supported in law though is it?

If you have SPA advantage that you will YC, you should not be downgrading in the case of pen/goal.
No but it it is supported by the spirit of it, the IFAB and something they are looking at incorporating into the law.
 
No but it it is supported by the spirit of it, the IFAB and something they are looking at incorporating into the law.

I disagree. At the moment the law is clear.
By not carding you are being inconsistent and giving other refs poor advice IMHO.

Of course the world cup did not help!
 
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)
 
Not sure i follow the logic of cautioning for Stopping Promising Attack if the Promising Attack is not Stopped.
Because in Law, you're not cautioning for STOPPING a Promising Attack, but for Stopping OR Interfering in a Promising Attack

Maybe caution for USB, otherwise we're potentially cautioning for something which hasn't happened (although SPA might have been attempted)
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
 
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

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)!
 
I disagree. At the moment the law is clear.
By not carding you are being inconsistent and giving other refs poor advice IMHO.

Of course the world cup did not help!
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.

1534862941226-png.2359
 
Last edited:
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.

1534862941226-png.2359
You asked the IFAB about Dogso. The conversation above is about SPA.
 
You asked the IFAB about Dogso. The conversation above is about SPA.
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).
 
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).
Citation please, because it's midseason for a lot of people, and you are claiming a law change.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one
Back
Top