Liverpool v Everton

[GraemeS]

You can caution anything you like under "lack of respect", it's there in order to be a general term. Dirty boots can be considered a lack of respect for the game. Calling it "soccer" instead of "football" can be considered a lack of respect for the game. Etc etc.

The point isn't can you (because the answer will always be yes), the question is should you. LRG isn't meant for normal playing actions, it's meant for such wild and weird examples that they couldn't reasonably be expected to include them in the law book.

So where the question is "should I use LRG to caution someone where it's a perfectly normal foul and doesn't meet any of the normal reckless or SPA criteria?", the answer is probably no.

 

[Kevin0954]

An example of a different interpretation by different referee's, both on this forum and even at the top level.
Akanji 15 - 20 yards inside Brighton half, barely touches Brighton player = second yellow.
Konate 10 yards inside his own, Liverpool half , barely touches Everton player = free kick only.

Konate decision correct, Akanji decision harsh. (My opinion only).

 

[es1]

An example of a different interpretation by different referee's, both on this forum and even at the top level.
Akanji 15 - 20 yards inside Brighton half, barely touches Brighton player = second yellow.
Konate 10 yards inside his own, Liverpool half , barely touches Everton player = free kick only.

Konate decision correct, Akanji decision harsh. (My opinion only).

as a city fan at the brighton game i called 2nd yellow straight away. clear and obvious SPA imo

 

[Kevin0954]

City fan myself and not questioning the decision, so much as raising a point -
"An example of a different interpretation by different referee's, both on this forum and even at the top level."
Very, very similar incidents in my opinion both open to interpretation, and two different interpretations.

 

[RyantheRef]

You can't say that a foul shows a lack of respect for the game. If I was observing and a referee tried that one in the debrief I'd still be laughing long after I'd got back in the car, would probably still be chuckling as I wrote the report

Well you could laugh all you want, but the truth is that it is a supportable decision and you can hardly dock points for it. What would you be docking points for?

Have you been taught to use lack of respect like this by your tutors/coaches?

I have not.

Yes.

An example of a different interpretation by different referee's, both on this forum and even at the top level.
Akanji 15 - 20 yards inside Brighton half, barely touches Brighton player = second yellow.
Konate 10 yards inside his own, Liverpool half , barely touches Everton player = free kick only.

Konate decision correct, Akanji decision harsh. (My opinion only).

They're not different interpretations, they're different situations. The Akanji situation is SPA (because it denies the attacker from creating a potential and promising attacking situation) whereas the Konate situation is not SPA.

 

[GraemeS]

So why are you actually advocating for a booking for Konate? We all agree it's not SPA or reckless - for most of us that is literally the criteria used to determine no card is needed. What makes you think it needs a booking anyway despite not meeting the criteria for a normal bookable offence?

 

[Joe Harrison]

Well you could laugh all you want, but the truth is that it is a supportable decision and you can hardly dock points for it. What would you be docking points for?

In the UK, going off the Step 3-6 MOAS form, they absolutely could on section 1.2 which references "consistent and credible disciplinary sanctions". Incorrect sanction.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Incident 1 - caution


Incident 2 - no caution



Not sure why one is being cautioned and the other isn't? And if I'm not sure, then to non-refs it will certainly look like it should have been a second caution.

 

[RyantheRef]

So why are you actually advocating for a booking for Konate? We all agree it's not SPA or reckless - for most of us that is literally the criteria used to determine no card is needed. What makes you think it needs a booking anyway despite not meeting the criteria for a normal bookable offence?

Re-read the conversation. I was answering a question about what I would give a caution for if I were to give a caution. I said if I wanted to caution this foul, then I would do it for UB-reckless. The reason I would give is that the foul was neither SPA nor USB, but because it is a foul far off the ball which cannot really be considered a normal footballing action, and for which most observers would want to see cautioned. If those reasons are compelling to you, then UB-Lack of Respect is the answer.

 

[RyantheRef]

In the UK, going off the Step 3-6 MOAS form, they absolutely could on section 1.2 which references "consistent and credible disciplinary sanctions". Incorrect sanction.

It is not incorrect in Law.

 

[es1]

i think the potential reasons for the non-second caution has been covered (at length) already

it's no SPA - no chance of everton retaining possession
it's not reckless - it's a foul sure but nothing more

 

[RyantheRef]

Incident 1 - caution
View attachment 6927

Incident 2 - no caution

View attachment 6928

Not sure why one is being cautioned and the other isn't? And if I'm not sure, then to non-refs it will certainly look like it should have been a second caution.

One of the critical considerations for SPA is possession.

 

[Joe Harrison]

It is not incorrect in Law.

It absolutely is incorrect in law. I would not support this as a credible sanction (caution).

I really cannot see how a foul can "show a lack of respect for the game", especially when agreement has been reached that it is not SPA/RP.

If I was coaching/observing a promotion candidate, I would absolutely pull down for this.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

it's no SPA - no chance of everton retaining possession

Agree it is not reckless but who is in possession then? At the time he is fouled, Beto is closest to the ball and has a reasonable to good chance of controlling it.

One of the critical considerations for SPA is possession.

I understand why it is an important consideration but it is not specified in law. It seems to suggest that you are likely to escape punishment if you tactically foul an attacker who is attempting to receive a pass during an attack.

 

[es1]

Agree it is not reckless but who is in possession then? At the time he is fouled, Beto is closest to the ball and has a reasonable to good chance of controlling it.

the pass is way overhit and runs through easily and quickly to the covering liverpool defender

he's not in possession and has no chance of being in possession

 

[RefGod]

You can caution anything you like under "lack of respect", it's there in order to be a general term. Dirty boots can be considered a lack of respect for the game. Calling it "soccer" instead of "football" can be considered a lack of respect for the game. Etc etc.

The point isn't can you (because the answer will always be yes), the question is should you. LRG isn't meant for normal playing actions, it's meant for such wild and weird examples that they couldn't reasonably be expected to include them in the law book.

So where the question is "should I use LRG to caution someone where it's a perfectly normal foul and doesn't meet any of the normal reckless or SPA criteria?", the answer is probably no.

Use of S****r instead of football is OFFINABUS.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

the pass is way overhit and runs through easily and quickly to the covering liverpool defender

he's not in possession and has no chance of being in possession

I don't think it's as clear cut as that, one of the reasons it looks that way is because Beto is stopped in his tracks so the ball gains distance from him much more quickly than it would if he was sprinting.

But can accept there is doubt and Pawson was in a good position to judge.

 

[RyantheRef]

I really cannot see how a foul can "show a lack of respect for the game", especially when agreement has been reached that it is not SPA/RP.

I've given the justification several times throughout the thread. We can agree to disagree.

 

[SammyT5]

Incident 1 - caution
View attachment 6927

Incident 2 - no caution

View attachment 6928

Not sure why one is being cautioned and the other isn't? And if I'm not sure, then to non-refs it will certainly look like it should have been a second caution.

You aren’t going to be able to make a judgement for SPA from two still images. To judge whether a foul is stopping a promising attack, you need to actually watch that supposed attack.

 

[RustyRef]

Well you could laugh all you want, but the truth is that it is a supportable decision and you can hardly dock points for it. What would you be docking points for?

I'd draw a new box entitled making it up as you go along and put it in there. Cautionable offence for fouls are specifically defined, you can't just make something up because a foul doesn't fit into those categories.

Ironically I would support a referee cautioning for SPA as I accept that is supportable even if I don't agree with it. But if they said it wasn't SPA but they cautioned because it showed a lack of respect I would be finding a way of the mark reflecting that nonsense. For step 3 to 6 it would be easy and I wouldn't even need a new box, decisions need to be credible and I wouldn't think your reason for the caution was.