Penalty goalkeeper 'protest'
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
I would imagine a coincidence. The way I read law, the goalkeeper not facing the kick would be no different to him being off his line... therefore if the kicker scores no issue, only a retake if keeper saves it.
The crucial difference is that the goalkeeper being on the line facing the kicker is a requirement of Law 14 before the referee can signal for the kick to be taken. As this is never achieved, the referee is incorrect to signal the kick to be taken.
If the GK was facing the correct way then turned after the signal was given then I would agree with you but here, we should be cautioning the GK for delaying the restart and making sure the pre-requisites are in place before the penalty is signalled to be taken.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Absent more info, that seems rather harsh.
one
RefChat Addict
From which bridge?
Lesser spotted 'showing a lack of respect for the game'...?
Don't know why that's even in the book. Seems to only exist as a 'get out of jail free card' for when a referee can't justify a caution to an observer, but the observer will always reject it anyway so may as well take it out the book
Don't know why that's even in the book. Seems to only exist as a 'get out of jail free card' for when a referee can't justify a caution to an observer, but the observer will always reject it anyway so may as well take it out the book
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Tht’s a problem for the observer, not the Laws. It’s relatively recently that as a group we have forgotten that the caution is for unsporting behavior and the Laws give examples.
The issue in the UK is that match officials tend to use the FA caution codes when giving a reason for a caution, whereas as an Observer I will have recorded USB ("Unsporting Behaviour")
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Could you elaborate more? Why would that create a problem when the R says “lack of respect for the game,” as that is one of the examples of USB in Law 12? I feel like I’m missing something here.
It's not a big issue, just a need to ensure that my Observer report matches the Referee's report.
I use "USB" and then add the info e. g. Adopting Aggressive Attitude, Foul Tackle, but I have never heard "Lack of respect for the game" from a referee.
The FA Codes are listed as:
Caution codes
C1 – Unsporting behaviour
C2 – (Sin Bin) – Shows dissent by word or action – Sin Bin
C2 – Shows dissent by word or action
C3 – Persistently infringing the laws of the game
C4 – Delays the restart of play
C5 – Fails to respect the required distance at a restart
C6 – Enters or re-enters the field of play without the referee’s permission
C7 – Deliberately leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission
FA Codes (For Unsporting Behaviour)
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
I use "USB" and then add the info e. g. Adopting Aggressive Attitude, Foul Tackle, but I have never heard "Lack of respect for the game" from a referee.
The FA Codes are listed as:
Caution codes
C1 – Unsporting behaviour
C2 – (Sin Bin) – Shows dissent by word or action – Sin Bin
C2 – Shows dissent by word or action
C3 – Persistently infringing the laws of the game
C4 – Delays the restart of play
C5 – Fails to respect the required distance at a restart
C6 – Enters or re-enters the field of play without the referee’s permission
C7 – Deliberately leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission
FA Codes (For Unsporting Behaviour)
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
one
RefChat Addict
After over a decade on this forum it all makes sense now.
So very often when we talked about PIADM many English referees thought it was a mandatory caution. It is dangerous to have a USB code called Dangerous Play. Reckless play mades much more sense.
Similar to "handball". Many English referees think every handball is a caution. We have handball as a code but we don't have SPA!
That list is outdated and creates more problems than it solves.
So very often when we talked about PIADM many English referees thought it was a mandatory caution. It is dangerous to have a USB code called Dangerous Play. Reckless play mades much more sense.
Similar to "handball". Many English referees think every handball is a caution. We have handball as a code but we don't have SPA!
That list is outdated and creates more problems than it solves.
Last edited:
Totally agree, it hasn’t been updated for decades and doesn’t reflect current law. The fact that SPA, probably the most common USB caution, isn’t on there says it all really.
I’m far from convinced that the C1 caution codes are used for anything. I would guess that the person who created the caution spreadsheet saw the codes on the old paper forms so assumed they were needed, as did whoever replicated on MOAS, then WGS and now the referee portal.
one
RefChat Addict
Which totally defeats the purpose of having these codes if you can't figure out what the actual reason for the caution was if you didn't see the incident or read a description.
Trip, push or pull etc can also be USB without being SPA. A reckless trip can be reported under two codes. The codes should not be so that referees have somewhere to fit their caution. They should be so that accurate information is received for statistical or sanctioning purposes.
The way I see it, there is no value in any of those recorded codes. If anything they may have negative value because they mislead.
It is, but that is a by product of the codes never having been updated since 1995 when SPA became a thing. Which just demonstrates how pointless they are, either keep them up to date or scrap them.
