After a tactical foul by Dani Alves, referee Clement Turpin pulled a yellow but hasn't shown it. Alves then confronted him, and Turpin showed a direct red. This was quite similar to the incident in the Chelsea - Norwich FA Cup match, except in that case referee Graham Scott already showed Alvaro Morata a yellow, and he gave a second yellow for the protest. Should Turpin have shown a yellow for the initial foul before going to the red? Also, when Turpin pulled out the red, Marco Verratti looked like he wanted to snatch the card out of the referee's hand, and the card fell from Turpin's hand. Verratti got away with nothing. He did get a yellow later in the game.
I would say the difference is that Morata committed two cautionable offenses which is why the first was shown, followed by the second and the subsequent send off. This is different because while Alves does commit a cautionable offense, he commits violent conduct towards a match official after that which is a straight red. I think that when something escalates to a sending off before you can show the card, you don’t necessarily need to show the yellow card first. It doesn’t serve any purpose because you have already decided to send them off. There is probably a different way to phrase that but basically if you need that person off the pitch, why waste time and possibly allow any further incidents to occur in between the time it takes to do both. In the case of a second caution, it is necessary to show both cautions because that is how the send off is earned.
There have historically been different instructions for these sort of situations from different governing bodies. I don't think I've ever had to do this, but in the back of my mind has always been what is the most famous situation like this, which is the Ortega red card in WC98. Ortega is adjudged to be guilty of simulation, the whistle blows and the card comes out but, before it is shown, Ortega headbutts Van der Sar. The red is shown, but not the yellow. However, the yellow was recorded on the official match report. It's all at 5:00 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=l-EwctgufVw And here's the match report: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=1025/match=8784/index.html#nosticky I don't think showing the yellow first and then the red is necessarily wrong, but the reasoning against doing so is that it sends the signal to others that he is being sent off for a 2CT and that can lead to a lot of confusion if everyone knows he wasn't on a caution to begin with. Just showing the red is cleaner. I was surprised Verratti got away with that.
If a player is sent off for 2CT, should the yellow be shown twice or just once before the red is produced?
I don't think you'll find an official answer on that--it's a very unusual to have two yellow cards with nothing in between. (Historical note: It used to be that a second yellow was never shown. Since the player had already been cautioned, only the red was shown to communicate the send off. At some point (perhaps it was when cards entered the LOTG?) that changed and the yellow was shown before the red to indicate that it was a second cautionable offense rather than a straight send off offense. It was an interesting change, to me, because that communication, unlike most of what we do, is really about what the potentially post-game repercussions are rather than the game at hand.)
It's not entirely clear from the video, but it looks like the referee's hand with the yellow card goes up just before the camera cuts away. So it's possible that the yellow was also shown before the red.
I love that clip, because too few referees would have the guts to follow through on that. I also think Cakir chose the right path. Because the cautions were for two completely distinct acts in two separate parts of the field, the way he showed the cautions brought clarity to the situation. I'm 100% in favor of how he handled it. With that said, and this is me being a broken record for long-term forum participants, there was a USSF memorandum that said you only show one caution and then a red if a player committed two cautionable offences before you were able to show the first caution. The reasoning was that showing three cautions looked cumbersome and that showing a single caution, followed by a red card, already indicated to everyone that it was a 2CT. Of course, the counter-arguments are that some might suspect you wrongly thought the player already had a yellow and that--as seen with Cakir above--in certain circumstances showing all three cards brings great clarity to what's going on (no one can watch that video, as an example, and think the cautions were for a tackle and dissent). Anyway, common sense answer is you should do what most clearly conveys to the participants what you have decided. The book answer might be even simpler: the Laws say to show a card for each instance of misconduct, so you should show all three cards in such situations. A slight wrinkle in the answer is that USSF had a different position about 15 years ago on this, which was codified into a memo... but that memo doesn't seem to exist anywhere now and barely anyone remembers it, so it's really not a problem.
Unless you see some physical contact or an attempt, I suspect that the sendoff in this instance was due to "using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures" and not "violent conduct". The difference could be significant in terms of the sanction adjudged to the player under each sending off violation.
Another situation with Bibiana Steinhaus giving two yellows, one for taking off the shirt and the other for climbing over the fence to celebrate with the fans. She showed the yellow once followed by the red. People could have wrongly understood that the player was already on a yellow, when he wasn't.
Wasn't there some practice at some point that you hold the yellow and red together to show it was a 2CT send-off.
Sort of. There reached a point (early 90s, I think) where the additional instructions to the Laws had a paragraph that you had to show the second yellow followed by the red separately. Prior to that, my understanding is that it was up to each referee. Some did it how we do now. Others showed the two cards together in one hand (separated slightly, like you’d hold a hand of playing cards). Not sure if there was any actual instruction either way on this before FIFA said we have to do it the way we do now.
This was the mechanic in NFHS games up until a few years ago. I never saw it under FIFA LOTG, although I wasn't watching that many games prior to the '90s.
I don't know if there was an instruction then, as it was before my time refereeing, but this is probably the most famous example of it ever being implemented in professional match that I can think of. The last international match of Busacca's career (maybe last ever match period). It's still one of the most absurd decisions I've ever seen in a professional match and I'm all in favor of giving more red cards, but this was too much even for me. Even though the decision itself was quite ridiculous, I have to say the delivery and how he issued the red card was really world class. Calm, cool and collected. Pure speculation on my part, but that decision probably was the reason Franck De Bleekere never got the CL Final that season. I'm pretty sure Busacca would have been in line to do a semi-final that season, but he sent off Van Persie and his career ended in disgrace. It started a domino effect where Real Madrid vs. Barcelona happened in the semis and UEFA basically had no choice, but to go with their most experienced referee for the game.