A&H

Cautioning/sending off decision after restart.

pankaye

pankaye

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
Am i remembering right, that if a team takes a quick free kick after a reckless tackle on before the referee has caution, then the referee will allow the it and caution when the ball is next out of play?

I have looked at law 5 and and law 12 and i must be blind 'cos I can't find it for the life of me i can't find the section of the Laws which talks about this issue.

please help
 
The Referee Store
Page 102
Delaying the restart of play to show a card
Once the referee has decided to caution or send off a player, play must not be restarted until the sanction has been administered, unless the non-offending team takes a quick free kick, has a clear goal-scoring opportunity and the referee has not started the disciplinary sanction procedure. The sanction is administered at the next stoppage; if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned; if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
 
we saw this last night (possibly) in the wolves v arsenal game

in the first half xhaka fouled a wolves player on a break, would have been a yellow but jimenez took it quickly (deciding to shoot from 40 yards but it was easily saved) and the game played on.

if the quick free kick wasnt taken then i'm certain xhaka would have been cautioned, because it was and jimenez shot, play on was the correct decision
 
socal lurker said:
I remain a non-fan of the SPA non-caution. The unsporting act didn't go away. I feel the same way about SPA advantage. I'd keep the cautions as they are cynical acts that are bad for the game.
Click to expand...
SPA is defined as Stopping a Promising Attack. Clearly if the defender fails to stop it because the referee decides to apply advantage, the defender has failed to stop the promising attack.
Now, if the law was rewritten to describe the action as Attempting to Stop a Promising Attack, you have a whole new ball game! And a whole load more cautions flying about, too.
 
Yampy said:
SPA is defined as Stopping a Promising Attack. Clearly if the defender fails to stop it because the referee decides to apply advantage, the defender has failed to stop the promising attack.
Now, if the law was rewritten to describe the action as Attempting to Stop a Promising Attack, you have a whole new ball game! And a whole load more cautions flying about, too.
Click to expand...
Law says "commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack", so the argument is perhaps whether the defender interferes with the promising attack, whether or not the advantage is applied
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Law says "commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack", so the argument is perhaps whether the defender interferes with the promising attack, whether or not the advantage is applied
Click to expand...
Yes, an oversight on my part. Suppose whatever the wording, we have transparency!

I’ve always felt the SPA definition was in the laws to help the referee caution for a careless offence which had greater tactical influence than a careless offence would ordinarily have. Well it works for me.
 
In my opinion they forgot to take interfering out.
Otherwise the SPA/advantage clause is fairly redundant, as any foul that would have been SPA, save for the advantage, is interfering with the promising attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top