Yellow and red card rules in football, fully explained

A defender takes down the last attacker forty yards out, and before the referee has reached the incident three separate questions have to be answered in order: was it an offence, did it deny something, and could the player have played the ball. The yellow and red card rules in football look like a matter of severity, as though the referee grades a foul from mild to bad and picks a colour to match. They do not work that way. The Laws contain two closed lists of offences, and almost every argument about a card is really an argument about which list an incident belongs to.

The short version is this. A yellow card communicates a caution, a red card communicates a sending-off, and only a player, substitute, substituted player or team official may be shown either. Law 12 sets out eight cautionable offences for a player and nine sending-off offences, the referee holds that authority from the moment of the pre-match inspection until leaving the field after the match, and a second caution in the same match produces a red card automatically. Everything below is the detail of how those lists work and what happens afterwards.

What a card is, and who can receive one

The cards themselves are signalling devices. A caution and a sending-off exist as disciplinary acts whether or not the referee has a card in hand, and the Laws are explicit that the yellow communicates the first and the red communicates the second. In competitions where cards are not used, the sanctions still exist.

The referee's disciplinary authority runs from entering the field for the pre-match inspection until leaving it after the match ends, and that period expressly includes a penalty shoot-out. A player who commits a sending-off offence before entering the field at kick-off can be prevented from taking part at all.

Only four categories of person may be shown a card: a player, a substitute, a substituted player, and a team official. Substitutes and substituted players have their own shorter list of cautionable offences, because several of the entries on the players' list describe things only somebody on the pitch can do.

One consequence of a dismissal deserves stating early, because it is the reason a red card changes a match so completely. A sent-off player is not replaced. The team continues with one fewer, and if that process reduces a side below seven players the match cannot continue at all. The substitution machinery, described in the guide to how football's substitution rules work, offers no route around it.

• 8Cautionable offences listed for a player
• 9Sending-off offences listed for a player
• 5VAR reviewable categories
• 7Minimum players for a match to continue

Counts taken from the offence lists and the VAR protocol in the 2026/27 Laws of the Game. Structural, not performance figures.

The eight cautionable offences

The Laws list the cautionable offences for a player in full, and the list is closed. A player is cautioned if guilty of delaying the restart of play; dissent by word or action; entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission; failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a dropped ball, corner kick, free kick or throw-in; persistent offences; unsporting behaviour; entering the referee review area; and excessively using the review signal, meaning the gesture that mimes a television screen.

Two of those repay a closer look.

Persistent offences carries an unusual instruction: no specific number or pattern of offences constitutes persistent. There is no third-foul rule, and a referee who says a player is on a warning is describing their own management rather than a threshold in the Laws. The judgement is deliberately left open, because a defender committing four small fouls on the same winger is doing something different from a midfielder committing four unrelated ones.

Unsporting behaviour is the broadest entry and functions as the category into which most cautions actually fall. It has its own list of examples beneath it, and they are worth knowing because they are not obviously related to one another.

What counts as unsporting behaviour

The examples given in the Laws include attempting to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled; changing places with the goalkeeper during play or without permission; committing a direct free kick offence in a reckless manner; handling the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack; committing any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack; handling the ball in an attempt to score, whether or not the attempt succeeds; making unauthorised marks on the field; playing the ball while leaving the field after being given permission to go; showing a lack of respect for the game; initiating a deliberate trick to circumvent the back-pass restriction; and verbally distracting an opponent during play or at a restart.

The word doing most of the work in that list is reckless. The Laws grade a challenge in three bands: careless, which is a free kick and nothing more; reckless, which is a free kick and a caution; and using excessive force, which is a free kick and a sending-off. A reckless challenge is one made with disregard for the danger to an opponent. That single word is the difference between a whistle and a yellow card in the majority of tackles that produce one.

Goal celebrations sit here too, with their own short list. Leaving the field to celebrate is not itself a cautionable offence, but a player must be cautioned, even if the goal is disallowed, for climbing onto a perimeter fence or approaching spectators in a way that creates safety or security concerns, for acting in a provocative, derisory or inflammatory way, for covering the head or face with a mask or similar item, and for removing the shirt or covering the head with it.

There is a procedural point in this area that surprises people. Where two separate cautionable offences are committed, even in close proximity, they should result in two cautions. A player who runs onto the pitch without permission and then stops a promising attack with a foul has committed two offences and can be dismissed on the spot for the pair of them.

Delaying the restart, and what changed in 2026/27

Delaying the restart of play has always been a caution, and the Laws give examples: kicking or carrying the ball away, deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play in a way that provokes a confrontation, and taking a free kick from the wrong position to force a retake.

The 2026/27 amendments changed the balance here by giving referees a sporting punishment instead of a disciplinary one in two common situations. A visual five-second countdown now applies to throw-ins and to goal kicks. Exceed it at a throw-in and possession passes to the opposition; exceed it at a goal kick and the opposing team gets a corner. Because the referee now has a direct way to punish the delay, the caution is reserved for cases where the player carries on delaying after the sanction has been applied, or where the conduct is extreme.

That is a meaningful shift in refereeing philosophy. The Laws have moved a class of time-wasting out of the card system entirely and into the restart system, on the reasoning that taking the ball away from the offending team addresses the problem more directly than a yellow card that arrives too late to matter.

The nine sending-off offences

The sending-off list is also closed. A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off for denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, except a goalkeeper within their own penalty area; for denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a non-deliberate handball offence committed outside their own penalty area; for denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick, subject to the penalty-area exception described below; for serious foul play; for biting or spitting at someone; for violent conduct; for using offensive, insulting or abusive language or actions; for receiving a second caution in the same match; and for entering the video operation room.

Two of those categories have definitions attached.

Serious foul play is a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality. The Laws add that a player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball, from the front, the side or behind, using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangering an opponent's safety, is guilty of it. Serious foul play is by definition a challenge for the ball.

Violent conduct is the opposite: excessive force or brutality used, or attempted, when not challenging for the ball, whether against an opponent, a team-mate, a team official, a match official, a spectator or anyone else, and regardless of whether contact is actually made. The Laws also specify that a player who deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, when not challenging for the ball, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

The distinction matters for what follows a dismissal, because disciplinary codes almost universally treat violent conduct more severely than a mistimed tackle.

DOGSO, and what the referee is actually weighing

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is the category that generates the most argument, and the Laws reduce it to four considerations. The referee must weigh the distance between the offence and the goal; the general direction of the play; the likelihood of the attacker keeping or gaining control of the ball; and the location and number of defenders and attackers.

That fourth item is the newest. Earlier versions of the Law referred only to defenders, and the 2026/27 amendment added attackers to the same line, on the reasoning that a supporting runner alongside the ball-carrier is part of what makes an opportunity obvious rather than merely promising.

Reading the four together, the test is about a specific attack rather than a general position. An attacker knocking the ball too far ahead fails the third consideration whatever the first two say. A player running across goal rather than towards it fails the second, and the sending-off wording is explicit that the opponent's overall movement must be towards the offender's goal. A covering defender arriving from the far side changes the fourth.

The distinction beneath all of this is between an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a promising attack. A promising attack that is illegally stopped is a caution for unsporting behaviour; an obvious goal-scoring opportunity that is denied is a sending-off. Neither term is defined by a distance or a number of defenders, which is why two referees can watch the same clip and reach different conclusions without either misapplying the Law.

1. 1Was there an offence at allIf the contact is fair, nothing that follows applies. A challenge that wins the ball cleanly cannot be reckless or excessive, whatever it looked like at full speed.
2. 2How was the offence committedCareless is a free kick alone. Reckless, meaning made with disregard for the danger to an opponent, adds a caution. Excessive force or brutality is serious foul play and a dismissal in its own right.
3. 3What did the offence take awayNothing in particular means the free kick stands alone. Interfering with or stopping a promising attack is a caution. Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity moves the incident into the sending-off list.
4. 4Where did it happenOutside the penalty area a DOGSO offence is a red card. Inside it, with a penalty awarded, the exception applies and the answer depends entirely on the next question.
5. 5Was it an attempt to play the ballA genuine challenge or attempt to play the ball inside the area produces a caution alongside the penalty. Holding, pulling, pushing, or a challenge with no possibility of reaching the ball, produces a red card as well as the penalty.
6. 6Is this the player's second cautionA second yellow in the same match is itself a sending-off offence. The referee shows the yellow first and then the red, and the player leaves the field without being replaced.

The order in which the Laws require the questions to be answered. Each step changes what the following one can produce.

The triple punishment problem, and how it was fixed

For years, a defender who fouled an attacker inside the penalty area and denied an obvious chance received three sanctions at once: a penalty kick against the team, a red card for the player, and a suspension afterwards. Referees called it triple punishment, and it produced results that felt disproportionate. A defender who slid in, made a fair attempt on the ball and caught the attacker's heel had conceded a penalty that was likely to be scored, reduced his side to ten for the rest of the match, and taken a ban into the next one.

The reform draws a line through the middle of that scenario, and the current wording is precise. Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball. In all other circumstances, and the Laws give holding, pulling, pushing and having no possibility to play the ball as the examples, the offending player must be sent off.

The logic is that the penalty kick already restores most of what was taken away. An obvious goal-scoring opportunity has been converted into a penalty kick, which is a better chance than most of the ones referees are asked to assess. Adding a dismissal on top of that over-corrects, provided the defender was genuinely trying to play football.

The exception is narrow and it is not a blanket amnesty for fouls in the area. A shirt-pull is not an attempt to play the ball. A challenge made from a position where the ball was unreachable is not an attempt to play the ball. And an offence that would be a red card anywhere on the field, such as serious foul play or violent conduct, remains a red card inside the penalty area regardless of any of this.

There is a parallel provision for the lesser category. Where a player stops a promising attack inside their own penalty area and a penalty is awarded for an offence that was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for it, no caution is given at all.

50%50%

• Attempt to play the ball or genuine challenge: penalty and a caution50
• Holding, pulling, pushing or no possibility of playing the ball: penalty and a dismissal50

The fork created by the penalty-area exception. The proportions are a reading aid rather than a measurement of how often each branch occurs.

Show the numbers

A DOGSO offence inside your own penalty area

Item	Value
Attempt to play the ball or genuine challenge: penalty and a caution	50
Holding, pulling, pushing or no possibility of playing the ball: penalty and a dismissal	50

Handball, DOGSO, and the goalkeeper's exemption

Handball has its own branch of the sending-off list, and it splits three ways.

A player who denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence is sent off wherever on the field it happens, with one carve-out: a goalkeeper inside their own penalty area is not, because handling there is not an offence in the first place.

A player who denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a non-deliberate handball offence outside their own penalty area is also sent off. Inside their own area, where the referee awards a penalty for a non-deliberate handball that denied an obvious chance, the offender is cautioned rather than dismissed, following the same reasoning as the penalty-area exception above.

A player who handles the ball in an attempt to score, successfully or not, is cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The 2026/27 amendments clarified that where advantage is played after an unsuccessful attempt to stop a goal by hand, there is no caution.

The underlying question of what makes a handball offence at all, which is a separate and equally contested matter, is set out in the explanation of the handball law and how it has changed.

Second yellows are not the same as straight reds

A second caution in the same match appears on the sending-off list as an offence in its own right, and the mechanics on the field are identical to any other dismissal: the player leaves, the team plays short, and there is no replacement.

The differences appear elsewhere.

Under the disciplinary codes that competitions write for themselves, a dismissal for two cautions is generally treated more leniently than a straight red, on the basis that two cautionable offences are not equivalent to one serious one. The suspension is usually shorter and the review process simpler.

The second difference used to concern VAR and has now narrowed. For most of the video review era, a red card arising from two yellows sat entirely outside the reviewable categories: the protocol covered direct red cards only, and explicitly excluded a second caution. A referee who wrongly gave a second yellow could not be helped, and neither could the player.

The 2026/27 amendments changed that. A red card resulting from a clearly incorrect second yellow card is now reviewable. The asymmetry that remains is that a first caution on its own is still not reviewable, and VAR cannot cause a caution to be issued where the referee gave none. Only the dismissal is in scope, and only when the second caution was clearly wrong.

Advantage, and the amendment that arrived in 2026

If the referee plays advantage for an offence that would have brought a card, the sanction is administered when the ball is next out of play. That much has been stable for years, and it is why a yellow card sometimes appears thirty seconds after the foul that caused it.

The 2026/27 wording refines what happens when the offence was a DOGSO. The player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour rather than sent off, since the opportunity was not actually denied, except where a goal is scored by the non-offending team as a result of the advantage having been played, in which case there is no sanction at all. Where the offence merely interfered with or stopped a promising attack and advantage was played, the player is not cautioned.

The principle is consistent throughout. The sanction tracks what the offence actually cost the attacking side, and if the attack produced a goal anyway, it cost nothing.

The Laws add a warning about when advantage should not be used. It should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence, unless there is a clear opportunity to score. Playing on after a violent act leaves a player on the field who should not be there.

Team officials, and cards from the technical area

Coaches and staff have been shown cards since the 2019 revision, and the Laws set out their own categories.

Some conduct produces only a warning: entering the field in a respectful, non-confrontational manner; failing to cooperate with a match official; minor disagreement with a decision; occasionally leaving the technical area without committing another offence.

Cautionable conduct for a team official includes persistently ignoring the confines of the technical area, delaying the restart of play by their team, deliberately entering the opposing technical area in a non-confrontational way, dissent including throwing or kicking bottles and sarcastic applause, entering the referee review area, excessively gesturing for a card, excessively showing the review signal, and persistent unacceptable behaviour.

Sending-off conduct includes delaying the opposing team's restart, deliberately leaving the technical area to show dissent or act provocatively, entering the opposing technical area aggressively, throwing or kicking an object onto the field, entering the field to confront an official or interfere with play, physical or aggressive behaviour including spitting or biting, a second caution, offensive language or actions, and using unauthorised electronic or communication equipment.

There is a useful piece of housekeeping attached. Where an offence comes from the technical area and the offender cannot be identified, the senior team coach present receives the sanction. Anonymity in the dugout is not a defence.

What a card costs after the final whistle

The Laws of the Game stop at the dismissal. They define the offence, they define the sanction on the field, and they say nothing whatever about how many matches a player misses afterwards. That is left entirely to the competition's own disciplinary code and to the regulations of the governing body running it.

The patterns are consistent enough to describe, though the specifics are not.

A sending-off ordinarily carries an automatic suspension from at least the following fixture in the same competition, with longer bans for the categories that codes treat as serious: violent conduct, spitting, and offensive or abusive conduct towards officials. Bodies typically retain the power to extend a ban beyond the automatic minimum after reviewing the incident.

Cautions accumulate against a threshold, and reaching it triggers a suspension. The threshold is normally set by the competition, and the count normally resets at a defined stage, which is why a player carrying cards into the closing weeks of a league season is described as being one booking away from a ban.

Accumulation is almost always ring-fenced within a competition. Cautions collected in a domestic league do not usually follow a player into a domestic cup or a continental tournament, because each runs its own count. A player can therefore be suspended for one competition and available for another in the same week, which looks arbitrary from outside and is simply the consequence of separate ledgers.

Unserved suspensions are a different matter. Where a ban has been imposed and the competition it applies to has finished, disciplinary codes generally provide for the remainder to be carried into the next edition or, in the case of international football, into the player's next fixtures of a comparable type. The point of that provision is to stop a sending-off in a final from costing nothing.

Anyone wanting the exact thresholds for a given tournament has to read that tournament's regulations. There is no universal answer, and any article that offers one is describing a single competition and calling it the rule.

How VAR interacts with cards

Video review has always been narrower than viewers assume, and the boundaries are set by the protocol rather than by practice.

The principles are strict. VAR may assist only in the event of a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident. The referee must always make a decision first and is not permitted to give no decision and defer to the video. The original decision stands unless the review clearly shows it was a clear and obvious error. Only the referee can initiate a review, and the final decision is always the referee's.

The reviewable categories now number five: goal or no goal; penalty or no penalty; red card, which since 2026/27 includes a clearly incorrect second caution; mistaken identity; and, as a competition option, a clearly incorrectly awarded corner kick where the decision can be changed immediately without delaying the restart.

Within the red card category the protocol lists what may be examined: DOGSO, with particular attention to the position of the offence and of other players; serious foul play or a reckless challenge; violent conduct, biting or spitting; offensive, insulting or abusive actions; and the clearly incorrect second caution.

Mistaken identity works differently from everything else. Where the referee has penalised an offence but clearly shown the card to the wrong player, only the identity of the offender can be reviewed. The offence itself cannot be re-examined unless it relates to a goal, a penalty incident or a direct red card. The video is being used to find the right player, not to reopen the decision.

Two procedural rules govern timing. If play continues after an incident that is later reviewed, any disciplinary action taken in the intervening period is not cancelled even if the original decision is overturned, with an exception for cautions and dismissals given for stopping a promising attack or a DOGSO. And once play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not conduct a review at all, except for mistaken identity or a potential sending-off for violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive conduct. A quick restart closes the window.

The mechanics of the review process itself, from the check to the on-field monitor, are set out in the piece on how VAR actually works. The interaction with the other decision that most often precedes a card, the offside call, is covered in the explanation of the offside law.

What to watch for

A few habits will let you read a card decision faster than the replay does.

Watch the referee's feet before the card. An official who stops, points for the free kick and then walks towards the incident is assembling a disciplinary decision; one who signals and immediately turns upfield has decided it is a free kick and nothing more.

On a challenge in the penalty area, look for the defender's leg rather than the contact. The whole of the triple punishment exception turns on whether there was an attempt to play the ball, and that is visible in the trajectory of the tackle rather than in where the attacker landed.

On a foul in open play, ask which of the two categories applies before assuming a colour. Stopping a promising attack and denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity look identical at full speed, and they carry different cards. The four considerations, particularly the position of the covering defenders, decide it.

After a dismissal, count the players rather than watching the replay. The side is now short for the remainder, cannot replace the player, and must reorganise; that reorganisation usually tells you more about the next twenty minutes than the argument about the card does.

And when a delay follows a second yellow, the review is no longer futile. Since July 2026 a clearly incorrect second caution can be undone, and the referee going to the monitor after showing a second yellow is doing something the protocol did not previously allow.

More on refereeing decisions, tactics and the rules that shape them is gathered under football, including the piece on penalty shoot-out procedure, with the rest of the explainers collected in the blog archive.