Question Number: 30716

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/5/2016

RE: Competitive Adult

Jack of Sydney, NSW Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30708

Something in Referee Dawson's answer leads me to believe that I may not have been clear in the way I worded the question. I tried to give a plausible scenario, but I feel that may have detracted from the core issue.

In Referee Dawson's answer, it states that the action was reckless. However, in the scenario I'm thinking of, the trip is only careless. The only reason the caution would be issued if play was stopped would be for unsporting behaviour for breaking up a promising attack, not unsporting behaviour for committing a direct free kick offence in a reckless manner.

So just to be clear, if the action is not reckless (only careless), but would have broken up a promising attack (not DOGSO) and resulted in a caution if play was stopped, the referee is now obliged to caution when the ball next goes out of play under the new wording, even if advantage leading in a favourable outcome was able to be played?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
What the Law is now saying is that if a DOGSO offence happens with advantage played which results in a goal the offending player must be cautioned before the kick off restart. The manner of the foul makes no difference.
It is even more clear in the case of handling on the line that does not prevent the goal. The player must be caution for unsporting behaviour.
To quote the relevant section
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, including if a player:.......
handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal.
In the past there was discretion there also. Not any longer.