Question Number: 35772

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/22/2024

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 35765

Finally, one more thing about the SPA.

Situation 1:
A5 fouls (SPA, careless), the fouled player continues, A15 fouls him moments later (careless, a MORE advantegous place for the fouled). A15 thus defeats the advantage. Will the A5 be cautioned?

Situation 2:
A5 fouls (SPA, careless), the fouled player continues, A15 fouls him moments later (SPA, careless, a MORE advantegous place for the fouled). A15 thus defeats the advantage. Who will be cautioned?

Situation 3:
A5 fouls (SPA, careless), the fouled player continues, A15 fouls him moments later (SPA, careless, a LESS advantegous place for the fouled). A15 thus defeats the advantage. Who will be cautioned?

Or can we take it to mean that the advantage is fulfilled? Especially in situations 1 and 2.

Thank you very much!

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr,
You rarely get a 100% MUST on situations that are in flux!
If there is a foul and you apply advantage! You await the outcome and deal with the aftermath in the best manner the LOTG permit.

If that foul was reckless & advantage was realized, you can show a card at the next stoppage.

The difference of a SPA careless foul, is if the advantage is realized then the attack was NOT stopped, thus no caution is going to be shown for that initial foul.

If the 2nd foul occurs while the advantage WAS only being considered and forces the stoppage but does not meet the SPA standard yet is a better restart location. I would caution the first and restart at the 2nd.

If the 2nd foul occurs only -after- the advantage was realized and forces a stoppage then there is no caution to be awarded for the 1st foul. You either caution, show a card at the time of the 2nd foul or not, depending on the type of interaction.

The duality of 2 separate fouls occurring where both are SPA actions you cannot caution the initial one if advantage was realized because the attack was not stopped. If you choose to say the first one was a SPA in the better position then just caution the first one and restart from there.

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr

Thanks for the follow up.
The key consideration is whether there is a promising attack in the first place or just a careless foul. Having a second defender in place suggests that it is not all that promising?

Situation 1
We can take it that by not going back to the original offence that an advantage of sort has been played and realised. Play has been halted by an offence by A15 so A5 is not cautioned.

Situation 2
The referee can decide that A15 has stopped a promising attack so A15 can be cautioned. Again play has not been stopped for an offence by A5.

Situation 3
If the second foul is less advantageous than the first one a referee can go back to the original offence by A5 and A5 can be cautioned for stopping a promising attack. The 2nd offence is then mute due to the first offence

UEFA in most recent training modules talks about the use of a caution for Lack of Respect in situations where players blatantly offend the Laws of the Game which are not reckless, stopping a promising attack etc. Those situations are blatantly unsporting.

So as you know a referee in all three situations could issue two cautions based on what transpired which can include SPA and Lack of Respect. However a referee that is using cards like confetti will very quickly lose the respect of players and team officials. To maintain consistency does every minor foul in a game result in a caution?

I once saw a referee caution three players in a defensive wall for encroachment instead of picking the one that made contact with the ball. It got talked about negatively by everyone involved in that game and it impacted on the game and his control going forward. I think something was said in the wall and the player could not be identified so the referee carded them all. It looked petty and unprofessional. Not sure if it was for dissent or failing to respect the distance.
The referee would have been better served by picking the player that contacted the ball and made a mental note of the two other players affording them no leeway in other game situations going forward.

As you know referees are encouraged to use a hierarchy of sanction from a quiet word, public word to a card. A referee in your situations could easily sanction the player that committed the offence that halted play and have a public word with a team mate about the failed SPA attempt and not coming to the referee’s attention again. It would also be a factor in determining persistent infringement.

So for me the best approach is to sanction the clear offender who halted play, if merited for SPA and to make a mental note of the other player including having a public word. If that player does not take the warning advice then its an easy caution later in the game.