Tottenham v Man City

[socal lurker]

“Tackle” is defined in the Laws as “ A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air).” So it isn’t possible to have an “off the ball” tackle.

But there are plenty of fouls that can legitimately happen off the ball. Impeding (either kind). A careless trip by the defender trying to catch the attacker tht got past. It would be very unusual but certainly could be SPA that wouldn’t be a caution absent the PA.

 

[bloovee]

Yes, in fairness I agree with all you say.

I do think in reality, there are very few scenarios where an off the ball ‘tackle’ isn’t sanctioned with a caution, but it does happen.

It happened last night in Arsenal v Chelsea when Cucurella was hauled down off the ball. Mr Banks waited three minutes for the ball to be out of play then just had a very stern word with the offender.

 

[JamesL]

It happened last night in Arsenal v Chelsea when Cucurella was hauled down off the ball. Mr Banks waited three minutes for the ball to be out of play then just had a very stern word with the offender.

Did he play advantage? Assuming he did if he went back to it and so this would be correct as spa + advantage = no sanction.

 

[bloovee]

Did he play advantage? Assuming he did if he went back to it and so this would be correct as spa + advantage = no sanction.

I think that bypasses the debate so far. I can't imagine a referee signalling advantage when the offence happened a long way from play (maybe only seen by the nearby AR). The breakaway attack continued - call it advantage if you want - but quickly petered out. If the foul (dragging the opponent to the ground) hadn't been committed, there would have been another player offering one more option for the breakaway to come to something. It may not come under SPA but it's a deliberate, cynical foul nowhere near play, to stop an opponent joining a promising attack. Is that not worth a USB caution?

 

[es1]

I think that bypasses the debate so far. I can't imagine a referee signalling advantage when the offence happened a long way from play (maybe only seen by the nearby AR). The breakaway attack continued - call it advantage if you want - but quickly petered out. If the foul (dragging the opponent to the ground) hadn't been committed, there would have been another player offering one more option for the breakaway to come to something. It may not come under SPA but it's a deliberate, cynical foul nowhere near play, to stop an opponent joining a promising attack. Is that not worth a USB caution?

100% it is, but modern refs will use the spa get out as a reason not to caution someone, especially early in the game as this was

 

[RefereeX]

I think that bypasses the debate so far. I can't imagine a referee signalling advantage when the offence happened a long way from play (maybe only seen by the nearby AR). The breakaway attack continued - call it advantage if you want - but quickly petered out. If the foul (dragging the opponent to the ground) hadn't been committed, there would have been another player offering one more option for the breakaway to come to something. It may not come under SPA but it's a deliberate, cynical foul nowhere near play, to stop an opponent joining a promising attack. Is that not worth a USB caution?

USB as it is, its not clearly and obviously written in law to be a cautionable offence, although I'm aware it's been clarified that it can be. I can't personally picture any scenario where a player is deliberately brought down off the ball when it isn't part of an attacking move. I wouldn't call that USB, I'd call it AA if anything as it would be totally unnecessary. In the situation described it clearly ticks SPA as an offence. As for @es1 's post above, I don't think it's a case of using it as a get out, I think it's not a cautionable offence unless you feel the game needs you to caution for it because of temperature etc, in which case the USB is your get out.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

USB as it is, its not clearly and obviously written in law to be a cautionable offence, although I'm aware it's been clarified that it can be. I can't personally picture any scenario where a player is deliberately brought down off the ball when it isn't part of an attacking move. I wouldn't call that USB, I'd call it AA if anything as it would be totally unnecessary. In the situation described it clearly ticks SPA as an offence. As for @es1 's post above, I don't think it's a case of using it as a get out, I think it's not a cautionable offence unless you feel the game needs you to caution for it because of temperature etc, in which case the USB is your get out.

"Aggressive Attitude" (AA) - for the benefit of those outside England - is a caution code which is part of USB, so the offence would be USB and the report would specify AA.

 

[RefereeX]

"Aggressive Attitude" (AA) - for the benefit of those outside England - is a caution code which is part of USB, so the offence would be USB and the report would specify AA.

Valid point, I just meant specifically as opposed to 'general unsporting behaviour'.

 

[socal lurker]

Valid point, I just meant specifically as opposed to 'general unsporting behaviour'.

Per the Laws, AA is general USB.

 

[Archer]

*AHEM*

C1 (BE)

You’re welcome.

 

[RustyRef]

I think that bypasses the debate so far. I can't imagine a referee signalling advantage when the offence happened a long way from play (maybe only seen by the nearby AR). The breakaway attack continued - call it advantage if you want - but quickly petered out. If the foul (dragging the opponent to the ground) hadn't been committed, there would have been another player offering one more option for the breakaway to come to something. It may not come under SPA but it's a deliberate, cynical foul nowhere near play, to stop an opponent joining a promising attack. Is that not worth a USB caution?

He 100% played advantage, and went back to talk to speak to Zubimendi a long time later when the ball eventually went out. It was textbook SPA, there was nothing even vaguely reckless about it, it only looked dodgy because Cucurella did what Cucurella does and flung himself to the floor at a slight touch.

 

[bester]

Wheel this out again. Since this we've had IFAB Q&As saying blatant holding is USB.


Elleray response 2022

"Can prolonged shirt pulling be considered unsporting behaviour in it's own right or does it need to
stop or interfere with a promising attack? It could be USB in its own right especially if it provokes a notable reaction

If it can be unsporting behaviour in it's own right then can you answer the below scenarios?

1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour? In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify


2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour? Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution"

 

[bloovee]

"Aggressive Attitude" (AA) - for the benefit of those outside England - is a caution code which is part of USB, so the offence would be USB and the report would specify AA.

Why has the FA invented an offence not in the laws? The only mention of aggressive in the laws is for sending off offences.

 

[socal lurker]

Why has the FA invented an offence not in the laws? The only mention of aggressive in the laws is for sending off offences.

They haven’t. They have recognized a common kind of undifferentiated USB that they believe happens with enough frequency that they decided to have a reporting code to track that flavor of USB.

 

[bloovee]

They haven’t. They have recognized a common kind of undifferentiated USB that they believe happens with enough frequency that they decided to have a reporting code to track that flavor of USB.

And it includes off-the-ball fouls that aren't quite SPA? (As suggested above)

Does anyone really analyse the codes? What distinguishes a foul tackle from a pull, or reckless play from tripping (which would only be a cautionable offence if it was reckless)?

And why bother with USB and have to tick another box for AA when you could just call it dissent?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

And it includes off-the-ball fouls that aren't quite SPA? (As suggested above)

Does anyone really analyse the codes? What distinguishes a foul tackle from a pull, or reckless play from tripping (which would only be a cautionable offence if it was reckless)?

And why bother with USB and have to tick another box for AA when you could just call it dissent?

The answer to your last question is that "Adopting an aggressive attitude" may be towards a match official or to a player or other participant, whereas "Dissent" involves a player showing disagreement with a match official over a decision.
Not an important differentiation in the top leagues, but in the vast majority of matches in England dissent results in a sin bin/temporary dismissal.
Penalty points are also different for dissent cases.