What point do you think you're making here? If we can genuinely think of something that isn't covered by any other part of the law, then we get to look at this crazy edge case and call it something you might choose to caution for. But unless I'm missing something, that seems totally irrelevant.You haven't answered the question I asked earlier. The law clearly indicates there are USB actions which are not part of the list in the lotg. Can you give me an example.
You keep trying to prove this same point by bringing up other example of things that are covered elsewhere in the LOTG. A "diving save" - which is handball - which is a DFK offence and so must be classified as C/R/UEF. Persistent pulling - again, the law requires you to classify this as C/R/UEF. And if you deem it to have been done in only a careless manner, your options for giving a caution once you're played the advantage do not exist.
If you can come up with something that you think qualifies then we could have that discussion. But that doesn't remotely invalidate my point, because the "open-endedness" exists to allow punishment for things that are so unlikely it would be strange to explicitly list them. Not for things that have clearly defined punishments, but when the referee doesn't like that punishment and wants to do something different.