'Cynical' fouls
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
Unsporting Behaviour - showing a lack of respect for the game.
When I've been asked by an observer as to why I've cautioned for it, I've always said there's no excuse for doing that action, full stop. I am, of course, assuming this is for holding/pulling offences off the ball?
When I've been asked by an observer as to why I've cautioned for it, I've always said there's no excuse for doing that action, full stop. I am, of course, assuming this is for holding/pulling offences off the ball?
Yes that's what I mean. Seeing as it is separate from SPA (not based on position etc), are you cautioning an attacker pulling a defender in the defender's own PA? In other words, do we punish these types of fouls equally all over the pitch? (With the exception of DOGSO/SPA)
one
RefChat Addict
All context and situational dependent. In the PA for example the fact that a defensive free kick will take play away from the attackers' pointy attacking area may be enough of a punishment. But on the other hand if the foul was in response to a good piece of skill to dribble the ball passed the attacker and the pull was a blatant "you are not ripping me and get away with it" then it may be a caution. These work on gut feel and are very much on "what football expects". The ones you would caution are usually easy to sell because most players (even team mates) expect it.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
So why don't they put it in the book first?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
You’d have to ask them!
(This morning, one of my cats brushed past the fridge and knocked my 5-year-old’s cat drawing on the floor as well as some fridge magnets from the freezer door. We have a big set of fridge magnet words. The two that fell on the floor were “big” and “cat”. F*** my old boots, as my father would say!)
This being the reason I ask! What I see on tv ≠ what I see in the book.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
While the idea that everything should be in the book or can't be a caution has been a growing trend, that's not the history of ungentlemenly conduct, nor what the magic book says about USB today. SPA and diving are not cautionable offenses-- the caution is for USB. The book gives examples of what is USB, not the exhaustive list of every way that a play can act with USB. That isn't a suggestion that USB is a free for all where we get to make up anything we want, but it does mean that where a referee considers an action to be USB the R doesn't need a magic box before pulling the card. That's a long way of saying that I don't think UEFA is at all out of line in providing referees with guidance that certain behavior should be considered USB. And I have no problem with the idea that cynical holding should be cautioned.
The other thing to consider is that some of these cautions can easily be justified as "interfering with a promising attack", not just SPA.
Consider why they are holding/pulling off the ball? Very often it is to block the runner from supporting a break-away attack, where the runner would be a lay-off pass or another body that will make the defensive work much more difficult, especially if he would cause the defence to be outnumbered. Consider the player casually stepping across a striker who has laid off a pass? He's being clever, hoping that you think it's a coming together, but also, if he gets caught, he's hoping it's just a free-kick, because his movement has killed off an attacking option.
For holding/pulling off the ball the other way; i.e. Attackers to defenders, very often these don't need the same punishment because typically penalising this completely kills off their attack, and in cases where they are silly enough to try it when on a successful attack, will result in a disallowed goal or will ruin the star midfielder's lovely through ball.
I still caution some of these for lack of respect even if they don't fit the interference criteria if I feel that the mood of the match demands it, or if both teams are using it as a tactic - I find it happens more in higher tier matches than at grassroots tbh.
Consider why they are holding/pulling off the ball? Very often it is to block the runner from supporting a break-away attack, where the runner would be a lay-off pass or another body that will make the defensive work much more difficult, especially if he would cause the defence to be outnumbered. Consider the player casually stepping across a striker who has laid off a pass? He's being clever, hoping that you think it's a coming together, but also, if he gets caught, he's hoping it's just a free-kick, because his movement has killed off an attacking option.
For holding/pulling off the ball the other way; i.e. Attackers to defenders, very often these don't need the same punishment because typically penalising this completely kills off their attack, and in cases where they are silly enough to try it when on a successful attack, will result in a disallowed goal or will ruin the star midfielder's lovely through ball.
I still caution some of these for lack of respect even if they don't fit the interference criteria if I feel that the mood of the match demands it, or if both teams are using it as a tactic - I find it happens more in higher tier matches than at grassroots tbh.
They are specifically mentioned though, whereas 'holding with no intention to play the ball' is not. The USB list is not exhaustive but it should list the most common examples. Holding in the middle of midfield you see probably most professional matches.
One USB instance I've been considering lowering my tolerance of, is when a player commits an offence that warrants a red card and the opposition are all over you like a rash to influence the decision. In actual fact, the opposition have just made it harder for the ref because it causes counter-protests from the perpetrators team that the red card was influenced by the protests
None of this qualifies as dissent, so a caution for non-defined USB preceding the dismissal is a route I'm gonna consider to demonstrate whose the boss!
None of this qualifies as dissent, so a caution for non-defined USB preceding the dismissal is a route I'm gonna consider to demonstrate whose the boss!
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I dunno. They are essentially dissenting from the fact you haven't sent off the opponent yet, but either way works. I think at one time asking for a caution was listed as an example that could be USB--I dont think it was in the magic book, but in a memo or perhaps the old US Advice to Referees.
Every situation is different. The basis of my post stems from an afterthought following a recent experience. The dismissal would've been straight-forward, but it was made unnecessarily difficult by the immediate interjection of several opponents. In that moment, a caution for the main interfering protagonist would've oiled the wheels for the subsequent red card
It can't possibly be dissent. It's just pure USB (albeit not specifically defined). I thought at least one of the was out of order and I was irritated by the outcome
It can't possibly be dissent. It's just pure USB (albeit not specifically defined). I thought at least one of the was out of order and I was irritated by the outcome
one
RefChat Addict
There was a bit of tongue in cheek in my previous comment but there was a serious side too. If players are appealing for something which is correct, I don't think it is right to caution for it. Where do you stop? Foul in the PA and attackers appeal for a penalty, do you give the pen and cation the attackers as well?
How often have we said on this forum not to award something if there is no appeal (I know it not right). But like it or not we naturally act this way, if there is no reaction from players we go with the lower or no punishment. Now we can't say we caution those who appeal at the same time. We can't have the cake and eat it too.
Sure if players are appealing for more than what it actually is I can think of cautioning. But personally I'd only do that only if it's excessive and only when asking for more.
I do get your point of appealing make it harder to sell as thou you are reacting to the appeal and not the incident. But that is part of the job and is not just in football.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Because it's UEFA giving this advice and they have no say in what does or doesn't go into the Laws of the Game - only the IFAB does. In fact it could be argued that UEFA shouldn't even be issuing additional guidelines in the first place, since this goes against the provisions of FIFA circular 1224 and which states (in part) that:
I can't contest the existence of the written word you quote, but I can assert that it's not worth the paper it's written on