Interfering with a promising attack

[one]

Not withstanding the discussion on handball offences I can't think of any offence that can be deemed as interfered with a promising attack and advantage wasn't played.

By virtue of definition, if it's an offence and advantage is not played, play is stopped. It then becomes stopping a promising attack (not interfering).
By the same token, if play is not stopped, then advantage is played and the recent change doesn't want a caution. Hope this logic makes sense.

Wouldn't it just make sense to remove 'interfering' out of the SPA wording?

 

[socal lurker]

No. I think “stop” means the foul itself stopped the attack, not the whistling for the foul. No way we want to take out interfering and have refs use it as an excuse not to give the caution. You’re solving a non-problem and adding a potential problem.

 

[one]

You may well be right and I am misunderstanding this. Can you give me an example of "taking out interfering and where a ref can use it as an excuse not to give the caution"?

 

[GraemeS]

I presume you would think of something where the foul occurs, but then the ball runs directly to an attacking teammate who continues the attack. The attack might be slower, or contain one less person as a result of the foul (ie those are the ways in which it has been interfered with), but a teammate has managed to continue so it hasn't stopped.

 

[one]

Yes that one example of interfering. But if play continues it means the referee has played advantage so there is no caution. Is there any example of interfering (but not stopping) a promising attack that must be cautioned. If no, then do we really need it in law?

 

[Keeday]

Yes that one example of interfering. But if play continues it means the referee has played advantage so there is no caution. Is there any example of interfering (but not stopping) a promising attack that must be cautioned. If no, then do we really need it in law?

Deliberate shirt pull? The very nature of a shirt pull means it is deliberate as there is no possibility or intention of winning the ball so it’s unsporting behaviour.

The attacker could manage to still get a pass off or pull away from the defender but you would be within your rights to come back and caution.

I’m talking the big obvious ones not where players are jostling and simply holding onto the shirt.

 

[one]

Deliberate shirt pull? The very nature of a shirt pull means it is deliberate as there is no possibility or intention of winning the ball so it’s unsporting behaviour.

The attacker could manage to still get a pass off or pull away from the defender but you would be within your rights to come back and caution.

I’m talking the big obvious ones not where players are jostling and simply holding onto the shirt.

Are you cautioning for interfering with a promising attack?
If yes then you'd be wrong in law. If no then yes gods caution but you didn't give an example of an instance I was asking for.

 

[GraemeS]

Yes that one example of interfering. But if play continues it means the referee has played advantage so there is no caution. Is there any example of interfering (but not stopping) a promising attack that must be cautioned. If no, then do we really need it in law?

OK, sorry I'm with you now. I think the answer to your question is in the slightly incorrect definition in your initial post:

By virtue of definition, if it's an offence and advantage is not played, play is stopped. It then becomes stopping a promising attack (not interfering).

The decision to not play advantage if the attack could have continued but in a form that is significantly worse is what I think would qualify as "interference". The attack was not stopped, because it could theoretically have carried on and still met the definition of an attack. But if, as a result of the foul, the referee thinks they'd be better off with the FK than continuing with an interfered attack, then they can make the decision to stop play, award the FK and caution for IPA rather than SPA.

If the attack is stopped completely as a result of a foul then it's SPA. If the attack is only partially affected by the foul, but the referee decides to stop play regardless as a result of the illegal action, then that action can qualify as IPA and still receive a caution.

 

[one]

OK, sorry I'm with you now. I think the answer to your question is in the slightly incorrect definition in your initial post:



The decision to not play advantage if the attack could have continued but in a form that is significantly worse is what I think would qualify as "interference". The attack was not stopped, because it could theoretically have carried on and still met the definition of an attack. But if, as a result of the foul, the referee thinks they'd be better off with the FK than continuing with an interfered attack, then they can make the decision to stop play, award the FK and caution for IPA rather than SPA.

If the attack is stopped completely as a result of a foul then it's SPA. If the attack is only partially affected by the foul, but the referee decides to stop play regardless as a result of the illegal action, then that action can qualify as IPA and still receive a caution.

Fair explanation but I'd say semantics. We still don't need the bit in law. The referee stopped play. The cause of it was the offence. So we caution for stopping a promising attack.

 

[GraemeS]

Fair explanation but I'd say semantics. We still don't need the bit in law. The referee stopped play. The cause of it was the offence. So we caution for stopping a promising attack.

Eh, if we're getting rid of things from the book because they're only semantics then we're going to need quite a few other threads!

It being in the book allows the referee to caution regardless in either situation - that's a significant real-world benefit over the alternative, which is them being technically unable to caution if someone stops their attempted SPA just before the key moment. Stopping/Interfering with a promising attack might feel roughly the same ATM, but that's fine because they both get the same punishment once the whistle goes. We don't need to know or care about the distinction and the discussion we've been having is purely academic, which is great.

But if you take "Interfering" out of the law then it stops being academic, and starts being something that directly affects when we can and cannot caution, which is a discussion I'd rather avoid!

 

[one]

Semantics was a reference to your explanation and not what's in the laws.
I think you do get my point and I understand what you are saying. Happy to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Keeday]

Are you cautioning for interfering with a promising attack?
If yes then you'd be wrong in law. If no then yes gods caution but you didn't give an example of an instance I was asking for.

You asked for an example of a foul that interferes but does not stop a promising attack that you could then come back and caution. I gave you an example.
Trying to pick fault with semantics and wordings in the LOTG doesn’t make you a good referee, otherwise the Premier League referees would all be lawyers!

 

[socal lurker]

You may well be right and I am misunderstanding this. Can you give me an example of "taking out interfering and where a ref can use it as an excuse not to give the caution"?

its there in my first post. The R decides the foul interfered with but did not stop a promising attack, but what is left is not better than the FK. The ref doesn’t give a caution because the foul didn’t “stop” the attack, only the whistle did.

your proposed change does nothing to make the Game better, it just satisfies your editorial purity. And it invites a misunderstanding of what is intended. There’s just no upside to the proposed change.

 

[RobOda]

Yes that one example of interfering. But if play continues it means the referee has played advantage so there is no caution. Is there any example of interfering (but not stopping) a promising attack that must be cautioned. If no, then do we really need it in law?

Off the ball bodycheck/block/trip?

I did this the other season, counter-attack happened, and a player managed to trip one of the attacking players on the halfway line - he didn't have the ball. The attack continued, got into the box, but because that player got wiped out, he wasn't in the box ready for the cut-back.

So, the attack worked - they won a corner, and I went back and cautioned the defending player for interfering with a promising attack - which in my very humble opinion would have led to a very nice scoring chance tbh.

(For what it's worth, I really hate the change of SPA not being a caution if you play advantage thesedays, they were the easiest cautions to give and were fantastic for match control IMO.)

 

[one]

Off the ball bodycheck/block/trip?

I did this the other season, counter-attack happened, and a player managed to trip one of the attacking players on the halfway line - he didn't have the ball. The attack continued, got into the box, but because that player got wiped out, he wasn't in the box ready for the cut-back.

So, the attack worked - they won a corner, and I went back and cautioned the defending player for interfering with a promising attack - which in my very humble opinion would have led to a very nice scoring chance tbh.

(For what it's worth, I really hate the change of SPA not being a caution if you play advantage thesedays, they were the easiest cautions to give and were fantastic for match control IMO.)

This would have been correct before the change. But incorrect after the change. I am after an example you can give that will be correct after the change. My whole point is that the change has made the interfering part in SPA redundant.

I am not too fussed it staying in the laws though.

 

[JamesL]

Not withstanding the discussion on handball offences I can't think of any offence that can be deemed as interfered with a promising attack and advantage wasn't played.

By virtue of definition, if it's an offence and advantage is not played, play is stopped. It then becomes stopping a promising attack (not interfering).
By the same token, if play is not stopped, then advantage is played and the recent change doesn't want a caution. Hope this logic makes sense.

Wouldn't it just make sense to remove 'interfering' out of the SPA wording?

A point I made when the law change came in actually.

 

[RobOda]

I am after an example you can give that will be correct after the change. My whole point is that the change has made the interfering part in SPA redundant.

Well IFAB says this;

A promising attack can be stopped or interfered with by an offence which is not a foul challenge (e.g. ‘illegally’ playing the ball a second time after a restart), so the wording now includes all such offences other than handball, which is covered in the previous bullet point.

If you highlight it in last year's edition, though how you can play a ball twice when it's not your own free-kick I'm not entirely sure.

 

[socal lurker]

If you highlight it in last year's edition, though how you can play a ball twice when it's not your own free-kick I'm not entirely sure.

it would be your own kick. Defender takes IFK by tapping sideways to a teammate, but realizes it isn’t his teammate, but an opponent. So he side tackles the ball away before the opponent touched the ball. The second touch interfered wirh the promising attack created by the initial FK. That’s what IFAB has in mind.

 

[RobOda]

it would be your own kick. Defender takes IFK by tapping sideways to a teammate, but realizes it isn’t his teammate, but an opponent. So he side tackles the ball away before the opponent touched the ball. The second touch interfered wirh the promising attack created by the initial FK. That’s what IFAB has in mind.

Fair do, guess that answers that, and there we go both questions satisfied?