Question Number: 35312

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/2/2024

RE: Competitive Adult

Peter Babbage of Hjorring, Debmark asks...

Really just looking for some clarification here. The Newcastle player Joelinton pulls back a Liverpool player . Advantage is played and he isn’t cautioned . According to a newspaper the explanation is if advantage is played the player is cautioned when the ball is next out of play if he would have been cautioned had play been stopped. If the offence was interfering with a promising attack he isn’t cautioned. I can’t see the logic here

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
Two entirely different scenarios.
If a referee was going to caution for stopping a promising attack and then advantage is played then by default the attack has not been stopped so there is no need to caution.

On the other hand if the challenge was reckless and the referee plays advantage then the referee must caution the player at the next stoppage.
Playing advantage has not nullified the manner of the challenge.

Now there can be times when the SPA is particularly egregious and even if advantage has been played the referee may still caution. A blatant shirt pull of a player to the ground as the ball is being passed away may result in a caution even though it did not result in play being halted with the promising attack continuing.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Peter,

To echo Ref McHugh, the reason for the caution is now relevant here, as per changes which were introduced in the last few years. Essentially, if we apply advantage, we downgrade it. From Law 12.3:

**If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

So, if the player would have been carded for SPA, there is no card issued. If the foul itself was reckless or otherwise deserved a caution regardless of tactical situation, the card is still issued.

The benefit to this change is that we're no longer required to caution for innocent, mistimed challenges that happened to be in a SPA situation, when advantage is applied - whereas previously we were still supposed to. The downside is it means that for those deliberate fouls, defenders no longer face the risk of the foul being unsuccessful but still being booked.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Peter,
Much like the handling issue being a DFK for accidental it is another LOTG concept that kind of makes us go hmmm? The idea of cautioning is to effect behavioral changes designed to thwart fair play or are considered as unsporting or unfair.
As you are likely aware of there are a few deliberations a referee has when it coming to deciding if a foul or an action on the FOP action reaches a cardable stage.

A careless foul that say BREAKS up attacking play COULD be what some call a "professional foul" as in ball or player but NOT both, are getting by to continue the attack. Any reckless or excessive tackle COULD break up the attack & also be cautionable or put sendoff criteria into effect in its own right be it for USB, SFP or VC.

The fact there is an attempt to trip or any foul which causes the attacker to stumble then recover and his team or himself go on to score, the necessity of showing a yellow card caution for a failed careless or venture is not necessary. No attack was actually thwarted. A Goal was achieved, the attacking team glad the advantage was played. The defender receives a reprieve of a foolish card so as not to suffer possible expulsion later for a 2nd one.

However, if the blatant shirt pull was like neck snappingly cynical or the kick had studs out and raking yet the player or his team powered through to score by benefit of the advantage clause . We are going to count that goal and punish the defender for the type of actions performed BEFORE the kick off , because they are not ignorable as the careless variety

DOGSO criteria in effect within the PA are reduced IF the attempt to tackle is one deemed by the referee as a a reasonable effort by the player in question and the PK, makes up for the lost opportunity . Whilst it did break up the attack no red card for DOGSO and only if the tackle was cynical or reckless in nature is a caution added to the defenders woes!
Cheers