“Blatant holding” is not mentioned in the laws but has been in guidelines/training for a few years. My take is it is a way to caution for SPA in wide/defensive areas for really blatant tactical shirt pulling and similar that doesn’t fit into conventional SPA or reckless criteria.I didn't realise blatant offences need to be cautioned
I think it's just meant to fall under the remit of USB. (Same as SPA).I didn't realise blatant offences need to be cautioned
I understand that it can be described as unsporting conduct but the wording of the Q&A implies that "blatant" holding is automatically a yellow card which, to my knowledge, is not in the laws.I think it's just meant to fall under the remit of USB. (Same as SPA).
Agree. While I think it is a no brainer that non-SPA holding can sometimes be a caution, the answer does seem to overstate it.I understand that it can be described as unsporting conduct but the wording of the Q&A implies that "blatant" holding is automatically a yellow card which, to my knowledge, is not in the laws.
I get what you're driving at but don't agree.I understand that it can be described as unsporting conduct but the wording of the Q&A implies that "blatant" holding is automatically a yellow card which, to my knowledge, is not in the laws.
How would you view a blatant ie deliberate (but careless) trip in the same location?I get what you're driving at but don't agree.
Blatant holding is cynical and therefore blatant USB for me and USB is a caution.
I think the word “blatant” is being used in a way that would be impossible to have a careless blatant trip. As I think IFAB is using the word, “blatant’ trip would be a clearly deliberate, calculated trip with no attempt to play the ball. I’d have no hesitance to caution that at all.How would you view a blatant ie deliberate (but careless) trip in the same location?
Holding itself is a non-conforming offence in the laws itself in that it doesn't conform to CRUEF that most other fouls do. So much so holding is covered separately from the list of offences that can be committed in a CRUEF. I mean how would someone recklessly hold, or hold someone with excessive force (I suppose a head lock could be brutality/excessive force or something like Chielinini at the world cup on Saka).I think part of the problem with the Q&A is often that it breaches the Law exam rule of limiting to what is literally in the question. I think the answer envisions a certain picture with "blatant," which would warrant a caution, but since "blatant" isn't a law term and is not specific, it doesn't actually teach the concept of when a holding caution is discretionary or necessary at all.
Replace the word 'blatant' in the Q&A with the word 'unsporting' and you would be conveying the same message, good to go with asking for a caution and in accordance with lotg. IFAB has never been good with their choice of words or wording in general, I don't expect for that to change in in their Q&A.Holding itself is a non-conforming offence in the laws itself in that it doesn't conform to CRUEF that most other fouls do. So much so holding is covered separately from the list of offences that can be committed in a CRUEF. I mean how would someone recklessly hold, or hold someone with excessive force (I suppose a head lock could be brutality/excessive force or something like Chielinini at the world cup on Saka).
A pet peeve of mine is when people say a reckless hold... My point is that, as with my other example, as we are setting it apart from those offences that can be committed CRUEFly then there is a clear opportunity to mention blatant being a caution. It's merely a handful of words at most.
I don't disagree it's a caution. I agree. Perhaps in unsporting behaviour they could have blatant offences. You know like they do for team officials (the but about repeated or blatant offences are cautioned.) There's just no conformity.Replace the word 'blatant' in the Q&A with the word 'unsporting' and you would be conveying the same message, good to go with asking for a caution and in accordance with lotg. IFAB has never been good with their choice of word, I don't expect for that to change in in their Q&A.