The Ref Stop

Cards, when to start?

The Ref Stop
JamesL said:
Jumping not so much but we always have shows disrespect to the game to fall back on as well.
Click to expand...

We’ve got the indirect free kick offence in law to use. Bizarre fixation with many refs thinking this is somehow always needs a caution.
If it’s reckless by all means caution.
 
bester said:
We’ve got the indirect free kick offence in law to use. Bizarre fixation with many refs thinking this is somehow always needs a caution.
If it’s reckless by all means caution.
Click to expand...
I have no fixation. There aren't many times where is is not reckless. When there isn't, at minimum it is unsporting behaviour.
We cant go to delaying a restart as the ball is in play, a restart is not happening, but the thought processes behind a player preventing keeper releasing is very much the same and to me that is unsporting.
Fully aware it isnt mandatory, but there are few occasions I can think of that wouldnt warrant a caution.
 
JamesL said:
There aren't many times where is is not reckless. When there isn't, at minimum it is unsporting behaviour.
Click to expand...

Why? Surely if a caution was so necessary, it'd be written in law? (as it is for delaying a restart etc) There must be a reason why it's just an IFK and not a caution.

If you're saying it's reckless, are you then giving a DFK?
 
alexgr said:
Why? Surely if a caution was so necessary, it'd be written in law? (as it is for delaying a restart etc) There must be a reason why it's just an IFK and not a caution.

If you're saying it's reckless, are you then giving a DFK?
Click to expand...
In the event of contact, of course. I am not saying thay eveey one is reckless or that all instances have to be a caution. What I am saying is, my last post wasnt quite clear, there are few scenarios that I can think of that would not result in a caution. By that statement, I accept there may be occasions where a caution isnt neccessary. My over riding opinion is that we do need to consider the offenders motives. Just because lotg do not mandate a caution does not mean you cant caution for this offence.
 
bester said:
We’ve got the indirect free kick offence in law to use. Bizarre fixation with many refs thinking this is somehow always needs a caution.
If it’s reckless by all means caution.
Click to expand...
It was my game. I deemed it reckless. I cautioned the offender. No fixation
 
Brian Hamilton said:
It was my game. I deemed it reckless. I cautioned the offender. No fixation
Click to expand...

Reckless applies to DFK ofenses, so you can’t, technically, rely on reckless for an IFK offense to justify the caution. At the same time, nothing in the USB list in Law 12 makes it an exclusive list. In the US, the now-defunct Advice to Referees had additional examples—interfering with the GK was on that list.
 
socal lurker said:
Reckless applies to DFK ofenses, so you can’t, technically, rely on reckless for an IFK offense to justify the caution. At the same time, nothing in the USB list in Law 12 makes it an exclusive list. In the US, the now-defunct Advice to Referees had additional examples—interfering with the GK was on that list.
Click to expand...
So you can't caution for reckless impeding of an opponent without contact? Asking for a friend.
 
A lot of referees want to justify cautions for things that don't need one. The prime example being handball which isn't stopping a promising attack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Outside of reckless (which I agree it has to be a DFK) there are other options of USB and of course persistent offences. But all of those would be rare cases. The majority of cases would be just an IFK.

Player gets in front of the keeper. You yell "move away 9. Let him release the ball". He hears you but keeps following the keeper getting in front of him. Yell it again to no effect. Toooooooot, IFK and caution for USB.
 
one said:
Outside of reckless (which I agree it has to be a DFK) there are other options of USB and of course persistent offences. But all of those would be rare cases. The majority of cases would be just an IFK.

Player gets in front of the keeper. You yell "move away 9. Let him release the ball". He hears you but keeps following the keeper getting in front of him. Yell it again to no effect. Toooooooot, IFK and caution for USB.
Click to expand...
If persistent, yes. 1st occasion? I'm not booking him. IDFK and public rebuke would cover that in my opinion.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
So you can't caution for reckless impeding of an opponent without contact? Asking for a friend.
Click to expand...

Not for being reckless. Could be PI or potentially inherently USB. (Frankly, I'm having trouble imagining how impeding without contact could be reckless--and if it is, it probably could fit under general USB.) Could also, potentially, be stopping a promising attack.
 
Kes said:
Trying to visualise that. :confused:

Help me out here .... ?
Click to expand...
You keep trying and I'll keep trying to figure out how to describe without the use of drawings :)

Apologies to other forum users. My post was in haste and at the end of a long day when both my wife and I had been informed of impending redundancy from our employers. We have combined service of 24 years between us. I also had to manage the fall out with the team I manage at work, some of whom have even longer service.
 
JH said:
If persistent, yes. 1st occasion? I'm not booking him. IDFK and public rebuke would cover that in my opinion.
Click to expand...

You told him to leave the keeper alone, and he ignored you and kept doing it? In my book that's a player asking for a caution. He knows what he is doing is unsporting and he is doing it in order to mess with the keeper.
 
socal lurker said:
You told him to leave the keeper alone, and he ignored you and kept doing it? In my book that's a player asking for a caution. He knows what he is doing is unsporting and he is doing it in order to mess with the keeper.
Click to expand...
I can understand that, yes. But if IFAB wanted it to be cautioned, I think it would be in the book.
 
JH said:
I can understand that, yes. But if IFAB wanted it to be cautioned, I think it would be in the book.
Click to expand...

Sadly, more and more "everything" is "supposed" to be in the book. USB is a general concept. The book lists examples of USB, not every possible flavor. I've got no problem with just calling the IFK in the normal situation--that's what I typically do.* But if--as @one postulated--the R tells the player to knock it off (nice preventive officiating, I might add), and the player continues anyway, I can't think of a better example of unsporting conduct. Moreover, if you tell a player to knock it off and he continues messing with the keeper, and you don't caution, I think you create a different problem for yourself.
 
We have codes where I am for, unsporting, persistent, and how about, actions deemed to be inflammatory, and even, obstruction involving bodily contact

So I would make one of them fit, if had too.

one off isolated blocking of keeper releasing ball, just a idfk for me......and I will be saying, prob in passing, right enough
does it again, am 99% carding him
does it a 3rd time, I would feel duty bound to do so, and I think its fair to say he, and the other players would expect a card!
 
socal lurker said:
But if--as @one postulated--the R tells the player to knock it off (nice preventive officiating, I might add), and the player continues anyway, I can't think of a better example of unsporting conduct. Moreover, if you tell a player to knock it off and he continues messing with the keeper, and you don't caution, I think you create a different problem for yourself.
Click to expand...
So it's a caution if you've warned them? And what if you forget to warn them? I don't like the idea that just because the referee has said something, an offence is penalised more harshly...

I say 'no foul' during play, if a player then fouls, should I caution him for being unsporting and not listening?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top