The Ref Stop

Yellow card for SPA (and red card for DOGSO) still possible after advantage?

Grug said:
Wise up? This is not an opinion, this is fact. If you play advantage, you are saying that there is still a promising attack, therefore you cannot issue a caution for SPA. The same goes for DOGSO. This comes from FIFA.
Click to expand...
Show me the directive!
 
The Ref Stop
Correct, SPA falls under the list of cautions for Unsporting Behaviour. Whats your point? If you've played advantage it means a promising attack has not been stopped. If you play advantage then an obvious goal scoring opportunity hasn't been denied.
 
Not necessarily pulling someone back on a half way line would be stopping a promising attack however another attacker could take the ball forward not the original attacker upon which you play advantage continue the game and whilst one SPA was stopped another one occurred due to the advantage which took place hence yellow card for SPA! The whole point of the advantage is to see the opportunity to play second/third phase of play whilst not losing momentum for a team!
 
A Freethinker said:
Not necessarily pulling someone back on a half way line would be stopping a promising attack however another attacker could take the ball forward not the original attacker upon which you play advantage continue the game and whilst one SPA was stopped another one occurred due to the advantage which took place hence yellow card for SPA! The whole point of the advantage is to see the opportunity to play second/third phase of play whilst not losing momentum for a team!
Click to expand...
As per Emre Can on Sanchez a few weeks ago.
 
At all of our coaching nights, we have been specifically told that is not a caution for SPA. For a holding offense you could caution for holding a player to stop them getting into an advantageous position, but SPA? Nope. If a player is tripped and ball falls to another team mate and you play advantage, you cannot caution for SPA.
 
If it were a hold and its stopped the player gaining or regaining control of the ball and the ball has fallen to an opponent, then I'd come back for a caution, as it's not for SPA. If it's a hold he's continued on and passed the ball, then no caution as he hasn't been prevented him from getting into an advantageous position.
 
SPA is the context in which a handball, or foul tackle, or holding can become cautionable. Hence why those things are what you submit the caution under, but SPA is what can make a referee decide it is unsporting.
 
A little theory a friend of mine developed regarding this :

You should look at it as two actions, an action before the foul and one after the foul. There's a promising attack, it's stopped by the foul, and then a second promising attack starts (under different - worse - circumstances as position/pace of all players involved has changed). Like there's an OGSO, it's denied by the foul, and then there's a second OGSO (under different - worse - circumstances).

Therefore, you could give yellow for SPA /unsporting behaviour as the original (more) promising attack was stopped, and you can give red for DOGSO as the original (better) goal-scoring opportunity was denied.
 
UEFA, in their 2016 (and indeed 2015) RAP DVDs recommends giving a caution even for FAILING to SPA. As in, the play fouls, trying to SPA, but doesn't entirely succeed, and an attack still ensues after advantage? Still caution according to those DVDs.

For DOGSO, if you play advantage (which you shouldn't do, unless the ball's, for all intents and purposes, going directly into the goal), and an OGSO ensues, then it wasn't DOGSO, but could fall under the SPA caution noted above.
 
The official line is under cautionable offences:
•" commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack. "

I think thats cut and dry as it can be. If you try to (interfere) spa and/or you succeed the LOTG state that is a caution in either event.
 
Grug said:
If you play advantage, you are saying that there is still a promising attack
Click to expand...
No, you are not saying that - neither based on what the Laws say, nor on logic. As per the Laws, the referee is simply saying he believes that by allowing play to continue, "the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage." Note the use of the future tense - the whole point of advantage is that the referee doesn't know yet, what will happen and is allowing time to see whether the team will eventually benefit (usually in the form of a promising attack) - or not.

Just because this is what the referee believes and hopes will happen, it doesn't mean that after attempting to allow the advantage, a promising attack will not ultimately be stopped.
Grug said:
therefore you cannot issue a caution for SPA. The same goes for DOGSO. This comes from FIFA.
Click to expand...
The Law continues by saying that the referee "penalises the infringement or offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds." Which means that even though the referee might have thought that that a promising attack would develop from the advantage, if it does not they can still go back and punish the original offence. If the original offence turns out to be one that ultimately prevented a promising attack, precisely because the advantage did not ensue, then the player can still be cautioned.

I have never come across anything from FIFA - or, more to the point,from the IFAB, saying that you cannot go back to caution a player after an advantage has failed to accrue. If you have such a ruling or recommendation, I'd be most interested to see it.

In fact the Laws say more or less the opposite, that "if the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution [...] would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution [...] must be issued when the ball is next out of play". In the scenario we're talking about, the time when the ball is next out of play is when the referee stops play to go back to penalise the original offence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top