A&H

Caution for SPA that didn't SPA..

Peach

Active Member
Level 4 Referee
Hi all, just looking for a discussion on a match incident from the weekend.

Lofted through ball, going to the left winger near the corner/wing (so definitely not DOGSO) and the CB deliberately tried to stop the ball with his hand. The ball hit his arm but carried on to the winger, so I played advantage and the winger almost scored.

My question is, would you caution the defender? My choice on the day was not to give a caution, as it would be for 'stopping a promising attack', which it ultimately didn't. The wingers' manager was a referee observer and didn't say I got it wrong too. After checking LOTG it states - a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player: handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack - so now I'm thinking a caution should have been given. In the grand scheme of things, people accepted my explanation and were happy with it.

What are your thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
I emailed David Elleray about this a while ago. His response was to the effect of: If the interference was such that it led to a less promising attack, but didn't stop the promising attack, still caution afterwards. If there was interference but it didn't effectively impede the attack, don't caution.

In your case, did the handball offence slow the ball or change it's trajectory to make it more difficult for the attacker? If so, a caution was probably warranted. If the ball glanced the hand and it didn't really affect the play, it may not be necessary.
 
Last edited:
I emailed David Elleray about this a while ago. His response was to the effect of: If the interference was such that it led to a less promising attack, but didn't stop the promising attack, still caution afterwards. If there was interference but it didn't effectively impede the attack, don't caution.

In your case, did the handball offence slow the ball or change it's trajectory to make it more difficult for the attacker? If so, a caution was probably warrented. If the ball glanced the hand and it didn't really affect the play, it may not be necessary.

Thanks for that, great response. The touch slowed it down, so the attacker had to backtrack slightly, but I as the pitch was wet the ball could've possibly skidded out of play - I'll never know unfortunately.
 
Thanks for that, great response. The touch slowed it down, so the attacker had to backtrack slightly, but I as the pitch was wet the ball could've possibly skidded out of play - I'll never know unfortunately.
As you weren't sure and it wasn't plainly obvious, no caution seems like the best outcome in my opinion. Not to mention the attacking team almost scored anyway.
 
... the "interferes with" part of the law gives you scope to caution.

The hardest situation is when a flying winger gets blatantly fouled and then the defender catches up and does it again... it looks pernicious... but if you've played advantage and the first SPA foul has slowed the attacker, and the next is another SPA...
 
Think the above advice is sound. With the build that, if in doubt, I'd err on the side of a caution. At the end of the day, attempting to deliberately handball to SPA is textbook Unsporting Behaviour

Agreed, I think it's safer to show the caution, I would reckon that not cautioning would be queried if assessed.
 
so I played advantage and the winger almost scored.
If you caution here then you'd be thinking without the foul there would have been a goal. Highly unlikely that the attackers ended up with a lesser attaching opportunity here. No caution for me in isolation but at times like these I'd also take the context and atmosphere of the game into account.

Nice application of advantage by the way.
 
Yeah, it sounds like the decision you made on the day was accepted and okay on the day but like @Russell Jones has already said, in the cold light of day, a defender has deliberately handled the ball in order to try to stop a promising attack - irrespective of whether or not he failed in his attempt, I'd have gone back and stuck him in the book. :)
 
Yeah, it sounds like the decision you made on the day was accepted and okay on the day but like @Russell Jones has already said, in the cold light of day, a defender has deliberately handled the ball in order to try to stop a promising attack - irrespective of whether or not he failed in his attempt, I'd have gone back and stuck him in the book. :)
Following that logic then even if the attacking team had scored, you'd still caution. I'd highly recommend against that.
 
Following that logic then even if the attacking team had scored, you'd still caution. I'd highly recommend against that.

Why?

If you see a nailed-on reckless challenge yet play advantage that results in a goal, you'd still go back and caution for the challenge wouldn't you?

Same difference for me ...
 
Why?

If you see a nailed-on reckless challenge yet play advantage that results in a goal, you'd still go back and caution for the challenge wouldn't you?

Same difference for me ...
Because it did not stop a promising attack and I agree with the interpretation of "interferes with a promising attack" given by David Elleray.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
 
Because it did not stop a promising attack and I agree with the interpretation of "interferes with a promising attack" given by David Elleray.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
I can, on reflection, understand this point of view. And I think there's a happy middle ground. If the defender's deliberate action has ANY impact at all on the ball and subsequent actions of the attacker then I'd be cautioning. If he was "lucky" enough that they didn't then I'd (as a minimum) be having a public word with him ... if only to demonstrate to him and everyone else playing / watching that his attempt was Unsporting and therefore unacceptable
 
Because it did not stop a promising attack and I agree with the interpretation of "interferes with a promising attack" given by David Elleray.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Neither did the reckless challenge I hypothetically mentioned but the caution afterwards is standard stuff.
The bloke has deliberately handled the ball mate, for unsporting reasons. In the games I referee, I'd have opposition players asking "aren't you gonna card him for trying to cheat ref?".
 
I can, on reflection, understand this point of view. And I think there's a happy middle ground. If the defender's deliberate action has ANY impact at all on the ball and subsequent actions of the attacker then I'd be cautioning. If he was "lucky" enough that they didn't then I'd (as a minimum) be having a public word with him ... if only to demonstrate to him and everyone else playing / watching that his attempt was Unsporting and therefore unacceptable
I can live with that :)

Neither did the reckless challenge I hypothetically mentioned but the caution afterwards is standard stuff.
The bloke has deliberately handled the ball mate, for unsporting reasons. In the games I referee, I'd have opposition players asking "aren't you gonna card him for trying to cheat ref?".
Let's not forget why the current handball clause was put in the USB section of the laws. It was because referees wrongly cautioned every blatant handball as 'standard' USB.
 
I can live with that :)


Let's not forget why the current handball clause was put in the USB section of the laws. It was because referees wrongly cautioned every blatant handball as 'standard' USB.

Irrelevant mate.

Like I said, the bloke has deliberately handled the ball in an attempt to SPA. At the very least, he's interfered with the attack because the flight of the ball was altered, albeit only slightly. The offence is absolute. I get why the OP did what he did, and on another day and different game, both he and I might do things differently.

When you deliberately handle the ball on it's way into the net - even if it still goes in - you're still getting a caution aren't you? ;)

Try looking at what the player did rather than the overall outcome in this instance. e.g "But i got the ball ref!!" :rolleyes: ;)
 
When you deliberately handle the ball on it's way into the net - even if it still goes in - you're still getting a caution aren't you? ;)
You are comparing 'attempting to deny a goal' with 'interfering with a promising attack' to justify a caution. As I said, apples and oranges. But happy to go with it. If the 'denying a goal ' is successful it's a red, unsuccessful it's downgraded to a yellow. If SPA is successful it's a yellow, if unsuccessful it's downgraded to no card. Seems your analogy favours my view more than yours ;)

As for the rest of your post, I'd be repeating what I have already posted. For me, the past trend of wrongly applying the handball caution is influencing your decision here. But let's just agree to disagree. ;)
 
You are comparing 'attempting to deny a goal' with 'interfering with a promising attack' to justify a caution. As I said, apples and oranges. But happy to go with it. If the 'denying a goal ' is successful it's a red, unsuccessful it's downgraded to a yellow. If SPA is successful it's a yellow, if unsuccessful it's downgraded to no card. Seems your analogy favours my view more than yours ;)

As for the rest of your post, I'd be repeating what I have already posted. For me, the past trend of wrongly applying the handball caution is influencing your decision here. But let's just agree to disagree. ;)

I disagree that we should agree to disagree. Let's just continue to disagree on this but without agreeing to it. Sits better with me. :D

(Fair play to you my friend - you always argue your point - especially with me it seems, but always in a polite and respectful manner. :))
 
Because it did not stop a promising attack and I agree with the interpretation of "interferes with a promising attack" given by David Elleray.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
Funny you should say you agree with Elleray, in a consequent email he also said: "If a goal results from a SPA offence and advantage has been applied the YC is still issued.";)
 
Funny you should say you agree with Elleray, in a consequent email he also said: "If a goal results from a SPA offence and advantage has been applied the YC is still issued.";)
Oh there are a lot of his interpretation I don't agree with.:)
 
Back
Top