2nd yellow promising attack

[santa sangria]

First 11-a-side of the season. Tasty winter league, minus one, 5-5 first half.

Home are 5-6 down, 2 mins to go, fast break, reckless cynical hack just inside the away half. Reckless and SPA. Attacker down injured, second yellow for defender. I blow for the foul.

Coach goes ballistic as the ball has rolled through to another attacker. He’s got nearly 40 yards, a covering defender, the GK, high probability of the 2nd yellow defender getting involved.

But I explain the law to the players (and coach after). There has to be a clear opportunity to score a goal - not a promising attack as this was.

Of course it finished 5-6. Got me thinking. Isn’t this law a bit rubbish. I’d have much rather played advantage. Home would have loved an advantage. Shouldn’t we be able to play advantage on any offence, even red cards?

 

[one]

While I understand why we "shouldn't" play advantage on SFP or VC, I never understood why we "shouldn't" on 2YC. What different is 2YC to any other red card we CAN play advantage on?

The wording of that clause somehow gives me the impression of strong advice rather than black and white.

high probability of the 2nd yellow defender getting involved.

This shouldn't be a deciding factor. Or have I missed somthing.

 

[Gabriel]

This shouldn't be a deciding factor. Or have I missed somthing

If I’m recalling the law correctly, if someone who is due to be sent off gets involved with play, you have to award an indirect free kick and send them off then. Much rather give the offended team a DFK that they can shoot from than an IFK.

 

[one]

If I’m recalling the law correctly, if someone who is due to be sent off gets involved with play, you have to award an indirect free kick and send them off then. Much rather give the offended team a DFK that they can shoot from than an IFK.

That all makes sense but i think you missed the context of my statement. You say you "much rather" which is about opinion and and preferences. The context of Santa's question/comments were about what the laws allow and don't allow.

 

[Gabriel]

That all makes sense but i think you missed the context of my statement. You say you "much rather" which is about opinion and and preferences. The context of Santa's question/comments were about what the laws allow and don't allow.

Yes I jumped ahead a bit! In the context of what’s allowed, playing advantage on a second yellow isn’t technically allowed but should be.

 

[santa sangria]

While I understand why we "shouldn't" play advantage on SFP or VC, I never understood why we "shouldn't" on 2YC. What different is 2YC to any other red card we CAN play advantage on?

The wording of that clause somehow gives me the impression of strong advice rather than black and white.


This shouldn't be a deciding factor. Or have I missed somthing.

No, wasn’t a deciding factor. I just threw it in as presumably the law is (can only be?) designed to make sure the red carded player ”takes no further part…” in the game.

 

[santa sangria]

And we can only play advantage on a clear opportunity to score after a red card.

I don’t think the law makes sense.

 

[RustyRef]

It's probably another example of laws being changed without updating all constituent parts to reflect it. Playing advantage on a red card, whether a straight red or second caution, would previously have been a huge risk. You could have the farcical situation that you play advantage, the player awaiting his red card creates or scores a goal, or blocks a shot on his own goal line, and is then sent off immediately after that happens. That risk is no longer there due to the law change that says an IDFK is awarded the minute he touches the ball.

 

[one]

It's probably another example of laws being changed without updating all constituent parts to reflect it. Playing advantage on a red card, whether a straight red or second caution, would previously have been a huge risk. You could have the farcical situation that you play advantage, the player awaiting his red card creates or scores a goal, or blocks a shot on his own goal line, and is then sent off immediately after that happens. That risk is no longer there due to the law change that says an IDFK is awarded the minute he touches the ball.

This is true but the fundamental proble was there even before the IDF addition for involvement.

The content of the two buckets (what we can play advantage of and what we shoudnt) don't make sense. They didn't make sense before the change either.

For example spiting (and now biting) should be in the same bucket as SFP or VC (no advantage). 2YC should be in the same bucket as DOGSO or OFFINABUS, they should have even before the change.