Iceland V England
- Thread starter Deborah3
- Start date
Even the ref spiced it up at the end.
Think I am happy with both pens and associated cautions for promising attacks.
The handball looked questionable to me, and I’m not sure Gomez was doing much that hadn’t happened 30 times unpenalised.Even the ref spiced it up at the end.
Think I am happy with both pens and associated cautions for promising attacks.
Once it is penalised, I would argue that it is nigh on impossible to say handling a shot that was definitely on target, and arguably going in, didn't prevent a promising attack.
This is obviously things I'll learn. I assumed a promising attack would be things such as running through towards goal etc. I wouldn't have thought a shot on goal would be classed as this (potentially because its classed as GSO)
Exactly this. Feels like a dodgy yellow because the initial decision was so borderline, but the two have to be taken as isolated decisions. Once you've decided it as a penalty, that existance of an offence is a fact - so the question then becomes "Does that offence need a further sanction?". In this case, the answer is a definite yes.
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
What's the situation with the first yellow card to the Iceland player? Referee played advantage so should this have still been a yellow card under the new laws?
Intelligent question - and the answer is yes. Play wasn’t stopped so it’s appropriate and correct to caution. Had he stopped play and England taken a quick free kick before he could caution then it would be waived.
No he wasn't. He has to take the blame for the incorrectly disallowed goal, but aside from that I can't think of much he got wrong.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Huh? The language on quick free kick an playing advantage are the same.
In either case, if th caution is for SPAA it should not be given, but if it was for a reckless challenge it can still be given.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
This. The tackle was still reckless IMHO (lunged in and completely upended Ward-Prowse).
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
I agree. He did the U21 Euros final last year from memory and I think he's a very good prospect. The Euros might be too soon for him but I do think we'll see him become a CL regular and go to major tournaments in the future.
one
RefChat Addict
Haven't seen this specific incident. A third option is if it is a garden variety USB. I had a blatant and prolonged shirt pull last week. It was also SPA but it was not reckless. I played advantage and cautioned later for USB. We are still under 19-20 but I would have done the same for 20-21. My rationale, even if it was not SPA I would have cautioned it.
I think we had discussed this before for Muller's 90th minute caution in the UCL final.
Last edited:
Question on this - should we see this in one of our games, what's the best course of action? YC for unsporting conduct?
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
That's the way we have been taught to interpret this in the US (at least with those who I work with). In a SPA situation, if you would have cautioned the foul even if there was no advantage, you go back and caution at the next stoppage. If the one and only reason you would have cautioned was because of SPA, then you don't issue the card.
Personally, I think that in more than a few of these situations we will still caution because the foul itself will be worthy of a card. A blatant shirt pull or two hands wrapped around the waist is still an "intentional foul" and should still be sanctioned as USB.