The Ref Stop

QFK after SPA

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

RobOda said:
Just wondering... (this is for everyone though);

Would you think it is acceptable to not issue the card if the QFK would result in an obvious goal-scoring opportunity?

I feel if that ever happened on the field it would be a dilemma of sorts.
Click to expand...
For borderline careless-reckless or marginal SPA lord yes. For nailed on reckless or SPA absolutely not.
I have not experienced this though. But I hope the smart referee within would take this opportunity.
 
The Ref Stop
At the World Cup stopping a promising attack wasn’t a mandatory caution ;).

There was the Martin Atkinson one where he brought it back for the caution, after Liverpool had taken a quick free kick and scored. Got slated for it but he didn’t have an option.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts. If the OP happens in the 85th minute of a cup final with the scores level, I would decide not to caution the offender. Not because its the easier decision but because it is the right thing to do, the fair thing to do. Because cautioning the offender rewards the offender and allows him to achieve his goal of holding up play. Because it will punish the offended team and that is never the intent of the laws of the game. LOTG are intended to restore balance and not push it further the wrong way.

How many times did we see in the world cup a mandatory caution was ignored because of all the wrong reasons? I choose to ignore a mandatory caution for all the right reasons. And if I have an assessor and I end up losing marks, so be it. I will cop it on the chin.

Now if this happens in the 20th minute of the game and the offender is already on a yellow, that would be a different story.
 
On a side-note, while it is commonly accepted "Once the referee has decided to caution or send off a player, play must not be restarted until the sanction has been administered." for every caution or send off, LOTG has it under "delaying the restart" and it is the only statement under that sub-heading for "Disciplinary action", implying it should only apply to delaying the restart. Funnily enough a player can not be sent off for delaying the restart.

Its another perfect example of either how poorly the laws of the game are written (which i think is the case) or everyone having the wrong understanding of it. The clause was introduced in its exact current form in 2007.
 
one said:
On a side-note, while it is commonly accepted "Once the referee has decided to caution or send off a player, play must not be restarted until the sanction has been administered." for every caution or send off, LOTG has it under "delaying the restart" and it is the only statement under that sub-heading for "Disciplinary action", implying it should only apply to delaying the restart. Funnily enough a player can not be sent off for delaying the restart.

Its another perfect example of either how poorly the laws of the game are written (which i think is the case) or everyone having the wrong understanding of it. The clause was introduced in its exact current form in 2007.
Click to expand...
That’s a simple misrepresentation of the LOTG.

The full sub-heading is “Delaying the restart of play to show a card” and in the context of the “Disciplinary action” text immediately proceeding it that states “A player who commits a cautionable or sending off offence ... is disciplined according to the offence” is clear that the disciplinary sanction must be applied before any restart occurs.
 
ASM said:
That’s a simple misrepresentation of the LOTG.

The full sub-heading is “Delaying the restart of play to show a card” and in the context of the “Disciplinary action” text immediately proceeding it that states “A player who commits a cautionable or sending off offence ... is disciplined according to the offence” is clear that the disciplinary sanction must be applied before any restart occurs.
Click to expand...
EDIT: I see what you mean. I misread (misunderstood the meaning of) the subheading :)

I guess this is a good example of someone misreading the law and whinging about it ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ASM
RobOda said:
Just wondering... (this is for everyone though);

Would you think it is acceptable to not issue the card if the QFK would result in an obvious goal-scoring opportunity?

I feel if that ever happened on the field it would be a dilemma of sorts.
Click to expand...

The 'by the book' answer is now.

Realistically, I think you can.....but only if it's a borderline card. Ie if you can justifiably get away with not giving the card, then I think it's reasonable to depending on the situation. I think that's just common sense refereeing.
 
Can it still be SPA if the promising attack is allowed to continue immediately thanks to a quick free kick?
 
Think you might all be giving yourselves too much credit. You have to ask was it a foul, did it deny or interfere with a promising attack, and then are you really going to add to the grey matter if I let it go and don't caution might there be an advantage. That is a hell of a lot to process in the space of probably a couple of seconds and I would suggest that only the very best referees have that capability.

For the rest of us mere mortals you are looking at stopping play and cautioning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top