Is English officiating corrupt?

"The International Football Association Board's Laws of the Games state: "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.

I fail to see how this specific rule wasn't either understood, or acted on in this case.

"The International Football Association Board's Laws of the Games state: "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.

I fail to see how this specific rule wasn't either understood, or acted on in this case.

English PGMOL mate. They like to think they can 'interpret' the laws differently to the rest of the world.

"The International Football Association Board's Laws of the Games state: "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.

I fail to see how this specific rule wasn't either understood, or acted on in this case.

Because, as my last post quoted, the very next paragraph specifically  rules it out in the case where the foul just stops a "promising attack". If the ref wants to issue a second yellow in that case, he has to stop play.

It's idiotic. (And confusingly stated in the laws, to have one para saying one thing and then another basically contradicting it.) But that's what it says.

We have officials that are largely sh*t, often probably biased, and quite possibly sometimes even corrupt. But rule makers micro-managing them with stupid, over-complicated and borderline contradictory rules aren't exactly helping. Why make it so difficult for a ref to use his judgement and just go back and book somebody after playing an advantage?

(Well I shall tell you for why. Cos in the name of "consistency", and in line with the general tendency for bureaucratisation and micro-management across society as a whole, those at the top can't just keep the rules simple and let refs get on with it, they've got to program them with 10000 lines of code and then send them out to be perfect little robots.

Of course, the programming doesn't survive contact with complex reality and only leads to worse decision-making. To which their answer of course is - "lads, we need more lines of code!"

Rant over.)

Because, as my last post quoted, the very next paragraph specifically  rules it out in the case where the foul just stops a "promising attack". If the ref wants to issue a second yellow in that case, he has to stop play.

It's idiotic. (And confusingly stated in the laws, to have one para saying one thing and then another basically contradicting it.) But that's what it says.

We have officials that are largely sh*t, often probably biased, and quite possibly sometimes even corrupt. But rule makers micro-managing them with stupid, over-complicated and borderline contradictory rules aren't exactly helping. Why make it so difficult for a ref to use his judgement and just go back and book somebody after playing an advantage?

(Well I shall tell you for why. Cos in the name of "consistency", and in line with the general tendency for bureaucratisation and micro-management across society as a whole, those at the top can't just keep the rules simple and let refs get on with it, they've got to program them with 10000 lines of code and then send them out to be perfect little robots.

Of course, the programming doesn't survive contact with complex reality and only leads to worse decision-making. To which their answer of course is - "lads, we need more lines of code!"

Rant over.)

As you have noticed and commented on, the BBC article lists two contradictory rules. You quoted one, and I quoted the other. There isn't as far as I can see any clarification as to which of these rules takes precedence over the other. The rule I quoted (in bold)  accurately applies to the incident with Tsimikas....it doesn't say anything about what may or may not have resulted, if the foul hadn't been committed.
You are correct noting that adding complexity (more rules) results in decision making becoming harder to arrive at an agreeable consensus....broadly speaking the point Ange P. was making to the media today.

It's a completely stupid rule that puts refs in a no win situation. Either they must stop play, thus stopping the attack, or not issue the second yellow. They're not allowed to do both. So they can't win, cos either way the attacking team will feel hard done by. Ridiculous they can't just do both.

It is ridiculous but almost everyone will want the red card given to the other team. Slot himself said he wanted the red and not the advantage given the game probably ends 0-0 and Bergvall is suspended for the second leg.

It is ridiculous but almost everyone will want the red card given to the other team. Slot himself said he wanted the red and not the advantage given the game probably ends 0-0 and Bergvall is suspended for the second leg.

Might not have ended 0-0. We may have nicked it late. But it certainly doesnt end in a defeat and as you say hes suspended. Is it competition specific,  or would he have missed the next league game for 2 yellows.

"The International Football Association Board's Laws of the Games state: "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.

I fail to see how this specific rule wasn't either understood, or acted on in this case.

There’s a terrific banner doing the rounds.
“imagine being us”  well on the downside of that, yeah imagine being us, always trying to navigate around the negative decisions we have to cope with, week on week.