Red after yellow

[BES]

If you call over a player to issue a caution and before you can take their name an incident occurs which the same player should be shown a direct send off, do you caution first and then immediately dismiss or is it correct to go straight to the red?

If the latter I assume you only report the dismissal?

 

[Big Cat]

If you call over a player to issue a caution and before you can take their name an incident occurs which the same player should be shown a direct send off, do you caution first and then immediately dismiss or is it correct to go straight to the red?

If the latter I assume you only report the dismissal?

The caution could be shown before the straight red because the showing of a card is symbolic. Both would be reported
There are many scenarios (I'm sure) for which you would just reach for the red and save on the paperwork

 

[RustyRef]

It really depends on the offences. For example if he stops a promising attack and then punches the player he fouled that is two very distinct offences. The SPA is a mandatory caution so I would say it has to be shown, followed by the red.

Whereas let's say he uses dissent and you decide to caution him, but before you take his name or get the card out he then uses OFFINABUS there's an argument to say it is almost an upgrade of the first offence.

To be honest I'm not sure there is a right and wrong answer on this.

 

[markref]

To be honest, if the player can't wait until after he has been cautioned to commit another offence then I'm doing him for both!
I have done this and find it's easier to tell the player he's being cautioned for the first one. He's more likely to be amenable and give his name etc. Then after the caution I've told him "and I'm sending you off for (whatever the second offence was)!" Both cards then need to be shown, and both must be reported if they are shown.

 

[socal lurker]

The caution could be shown before the straight red because the showing of a card is symbolic. Both would be reported
There are many scenarios (I'm sure) for which you would just reach for the red and save on the paperwork

I think you should give both and the player should have whatever the consequences are of both. He shouldn't be off the hook for the caution because he did something worse afterwards.

 

[AlexF]

Really, depends on context. If the player stops a promising attack and then gets up and punches someone, I'm not going to escalate the situation by showing that caution first. Straight to sending off.

Once the player is removed, I'm then going to inform the team official that the player also received a caution on the play, but for the sake of calming the opponents down a bit due to the punch, we only showed the red to the player.

 

[Peter Grove]

If you call over a player to issue a caution and before you can take their name an incident occurs which the same player should be shown a direct send off, do you caution first and then immediately dismiss or is it correct to go straight to the red?

If the latter I assume you only report the dismissal?

In the scenario you've outlined, where you've already stopped play for the caution and called the player over with the full intention of cautioning them, I think it's a bit late to be cancelling that caution just because another, separate incident then occurs.

Even if you decide not to show the yellow but go straight to showing the red, as others have suggested you might, that doesn't invalidate the caution. The showing of the card is only the outward sign of the caution and even if you forget to show it or decide not to show it, the caution still stands and should be reported. It's only if you've decided that the caution is not actually needed and made a judgement that it shouldn't be given, that the caution is not to be reported.

 

[one]

As most have said, the correct thing in law,for two separate sanctionable offences is two separate sanctions. Not showing cards does not mean there was no sanction. However you must report both sanctions even if you have not shown a card for one. In the OP (and in many other cases) I would most likely only show the red card, but in all cases report both. If I ever show one yellow and one red, or two yellows without a red (second for sin-bin), or any dual card except for R7/S7, I would be sure to clearly communicate clearly to everyone they are for separate sanctions. Here is another example:

 

[Kent Ref]

Really, depends on context. If the player stops a promising attack and then gets up and punches someone, I'm not going to escalate the situation by showing that caution first. Straight to sending off.

Once the player is removed, I'm then going to inform the team official that the player also received a caution on the play, but for the sake of calming the opponents down a bit due to the punch, we only showed the red to the player.

I think this is not correct procedure. You need to show said player and other players two different offences were committed and the player has received the correct disciplinary sanction(s).

 

[socal lurker]

I think this is not correct procedure. You need to show said player and other players two different offences were committed and the player has received the correct disciplinary sanction(s).

I think the IFAB Q&A that @one posted supports the view that just the red can be shown, and the yellow reported. That doesn't mean it is wrong to show the yellow first and then the red. But match management may be better by jumping straight to the red--as opponents are upset about the DOGSO--and advising the captain/manager that the caution for the prior act will also be reported. I think which is better has some contextual awareness.

 

[santa sangria]

I think the level matters. I’ve not had this scenario yet but, if I had the yellow plus straight, I would show the yellow in the highest level youth and women’s games I do because the home teams do live ipad scores - and in the highest men’s where I AR there are betting company reporters...

For that lot the clear card mitigates any awkward stuff after