However, I thought this was how it worked anyway? You don't just let someone off because they break the laws too quickly???
I think there's been some confusion over the years as to whether you can or cannot do two cautions on the bounce. I've seen it pop up on various forums and it throws a lot of people out. The clarification just makes it more explicit I think.
This has been discussed many times on here and other fora. A point that has frequently been put forward (though it has usually not been the prevailing argument) is whether it is fair to issue two cautions to a player when he has committed the second cautionable offence without even knowing that he was going to be on a first caution. Most times (as I recall) the majority opinion has been in line with what the IFAB is saying here - that a player who commits two cautionable offences close together deserves two cautions.However, I thought this was how it worked anyway? You don't just let someone off because they break the laws too quickly???
Jumped the gun on this, I should have kept reading. This is the explanation given:
"Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should
result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required
permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc."
However, I thought this was how it worked anyway? You don't just let someone off because they break the laws too quickly???
I think the more common confusion for the vanilla flavour referee has been interpreting the two offences as happening "at the same time". The example used by IFAB has been in a number of tests and RA meetings over the years around my neck of the woods and the most common response has been you caution the more serious offence as they happened at the same time.I think there's been some confusion over the years as to whether you can or cannot do two cautions on the bounce. I've seen it pop up on various forums and it throws a lot of people out. The clarification just makes it more explicit I think.