A&H

IFAB double foul

OldNavyRef

OldNavyRef

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
If the reckless challenge was in a more advantageous position. Why wouldn't you play advantage and give the free kick in the more advantageous position.

Are you not punishing the fouled team by doing this.

FB_IMG_1682524207680.jpg
 
The Referee Store
Mr Dean said:
I didn't realise blatant offences need to be cautioned
Click to expand...
“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.

Problem is it is not in the LotG - should be! - and quotes like the OP throwing in “blatant” are mot helping!
 
Kes said:
I think it's just meant to fall under the remit of USB. (Same as SPA).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mr Dean said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mr Dean said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Russell Jones said:
How would you view a blatant ie deliberate (but careless) trip in the same location?
Click to expand...
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.

(But I think the word is part of the problem with the answer, as different people are picturing different events, which lead some of us to agree that of course it is a caution and others to think it might be cautionable but not necessarily.)
 
In its Q&A IFAB frequently asks for a caution when one is not mandatory but is commonly cautioned. You will find other examples of it in this forum.

These Q&As started several years ago. While much of it is in accordance with lotg, a fair bit of is only 'based' on lotg and is more of an advise.
 
I have said it before and I will say it again...
I despair with the q&a.

Exactly as @one says they often call for a caution as if it's mandatory but neglect to have the laws or (printed) guidance reflect that.

There was one recently about a free kick being taken after being told to wait for the whistle and where this is written in the guidance, mentions nothing about a caution when it so very easily could do.

I know the laws can't cover all scenarios blah blah blah but when you're writing specific q&a on law it should at minimum marry up with what is written in the book.
 
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.
 
socal lurker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JamesL said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
one said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Wholly aware that's nothing new. We have enough chats on here about it. Also aware my ramblings on here wont change it either..😅
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top