Blocking the Fly Kick

[CA1992]

I think common sense applies here - it is not a mandatory caution, but there is enough framework within what's written in the laws of the game to issue a caution if required, likewise there is also enough for you not to issue one. As the referee, you have to judge on the merits of the incident and in the context of the game, whether or not a caution is required.

The laws of the game (not FA Caution codes) allow you to caution in instances of 'unsporting behaviour', which are further defined below it. You could use 'commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence', 'commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack' or 'shows lack of respect for the game' as possible reasons to issue a caution here under USB.

The only thing that is clear, is that you cannot caution in this instance for delaying the restart. It has to be USB.

 

[JamesL]

I think common sense applies here - it is not a mandatory caution, but there is enough framework within what's written in the laws of the game to issue a caution if required, likewise there is also enough for you not to issue one. As the referee, you have to judge on the merits of the incident and in the context of the game, whether or not a caution is required.

The laws of the game (not FA Caution codes) allow you to caution in instances of 'unsporting behaviour', which are further defined below it. You could use 'commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence', 'commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack' or 'shows lack of respect for the game' as possible reasons to issue a caution here under USB.

The only thing that is clear, is that you cannot caution in this instance for delaying the restart. It has to be USB.

You could only use "commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence" if there were contact with the keeper seeing as "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it" is an indirect free kick offence and then you wouldn't be punishing that anyway, you'd be punishing a reckless foul rendering the comments in this thread pointless to that situation.

 

[socal lurker]

Look at the caution codes.

Look at the LOTG.

 

[RustyRef]

Dangerous play is a caution

Unsporting Behaviour – further defined as:
AA Adopting an aggressive attitude
DI Simulation
DP Dangerous Play
FT Foul Tackle
GC Goal Celebration
HB Handball RP Reckless Play
SP Pushing or Pulling an opponent
TR Tripping
UB Unspecified Behaviour

They are English FA caution codes used for admin purposes only, absolutely nothing to do with the laws of the game. They are also woefully out of date given that by far the most common caution these days is SPA and that isn't listed.

Law only references dangerous in terms of challenges in a couple of places ...

• "plays in a dangerous manner" as an indirect free kick offence
• then defines "playing in a dangerous manner", but with no reference to a possible caution
• the philosophy and spirit section then references "The Laws embody the unacceptability of unsafe play in their disciplinary phrases, such as ‘reckless challenge’ and ‘endangering the safety of an opponent’ or ‘using excessive force"

The only other references to the word dangerous relate to the pitch or player equipment. Based on all of this dangerous play in its own right cannot be a caution, you need to have deemed it as a reckless challenge.

 

[Kes]

They are English FA caution codes used for admin purposes only, absolutely nothing to do with the laws of the game. They are also woefully out of date given that by far the most common caution these days is SPA and that isn't listed.

Not too sure I'd agree with that.
SPA, by definition is USB so the codes listed are just the means by which it was carried out surely?

 

[RustyRef]

Not too sure I'd agree with that.
SPA, by definition is USB so the codes listed are just the means by which it was carried out surely?

But so is AA, FT, HB, SP, etc.

My point is the codes have been around for so long I think they even pre-date SPA being added to law as a specific offence. And they certainly aren't listed in law and are an English FA specific thing.

 

[Josh the referee]

And they certainly aren't listed in law and are an English FA specific thing.

Guess the FA just have to be different to everyone else and do things that sometimes don't make any sense

 

[RustyRef]

Guess the FA just have to be different to everyone else and do things that sometimes don't make any sense

Nothing more than they wanted to get stats of what cautions were for. Nothing new, those codes are still the same as when the Excel based caution reports were introduced 20 years ago. Prior to that, and this is going to have the youngsters cringing, caution reports were hand written and posted, you had to submit in duplicate so had to use carbon paper.

 

[Kes]

But so is AA, FT, HB, SP, etc.

My point is the codes have been around for so long I think they even pre-date SPA being added to law as a specific offence. And they certainly aren't listed in law and are an English FA specific thing.

Yeah I do get the point.

But USB itself is a judgement. AA, FT, HB SP are specific actions via which USB is judged.

In theory, you could call verbally distracting an opponent during an attacking move as USB/SPA (cos it could be) but there's no code for that (apart from unspecified other) but we don't cos it has its own place under Law 12.