Question Number: 30708

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/1/2016

RE: Competitive Adult

Jack of Sydney, NSW Australia asks...

In Law 12, in the latest edition of the Laws of the Game, the following paragraph is present. It is worded slightly differently to previous editions:

'If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.'

Imagine this scenario: there are four blue attackers (one has the ball) against two red defenders, just outside red's penalty area. The blue players are moving forwards quickly and have plenty of space. In the referee's mind, this is a promising attack.

A third red defender drops back to help. This defender approaches the blue player with the ball from the side and slightly behind. The challenge is a genuine effort to win the ball by poking a leg across in front of the blue player, but is slightly mistimed. As a result the red player narrowly misses the ball and carelessly trips the blue player who had possession.

As the blue player goes down, the ball bobbles forward off their leg to one of the other blue players. It is now a three-on-two situation. One red defender moves in to shut down the player on the ball, and the other red defender picks up another of the blue players, leaving one free. Before the referee can whistle for the foul, the ball is passed to the free blue player in an onside position with no defenders (other than the goalkeeper) covering the goal. The referee signals advantage as this blue attacker moves into the penalty area with the ball. As there is plenty of time and space to wind up a powerful and accurate shot, this player then scores. The referee awards the goal.

If I was refereeing under previous editions of the Laws, before the kick-off, I would have pulled out the red defender who committed the foul, and reminded them to be extra careful about making challenges when the other team is away on a promising attack. I would have informed them that if I was unable to play advantage in that situation and had stopped play for the free kick, I would have been obliged to caution them for unsporting behaviour. I would not have cautioned them for unsporting behaviour.

However, in this edition of the Laws, it appears that the caution is now mandatory, since a caution would have been issued if play was stopped (according the quote I provided). Am I reading this correctly? If so, was my approach in the past correct, and if it was, what is the reason for this change in approach to dealing with tactical offences?

It seems disproportionate that if advantage played off DOGSO results in a goal, the send-off is reduced to a caution, but if advantage played off a foul breaking up a promising attack results in a goal, the caution doesn't get reduced to no formal action.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jack
I believe that there was an anomaly there that allowed the referee not to caution after a denial of a goal scoring opportunity resulted in a goal. Many felt that the unsporting act should result in a caution. The current Laws now requires the referee to caution in such circumstances so the discretion has been removed.
I suspect that it might take some while for every referee to get up to speed on this!

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hu Jack,
yes I think you are reading it right the caution for the USB act is a desired outcome even when a goal results. The reckless action DID occur what occurred after is not the issue!
Cheers

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 30716