Drop ball - unsporting conduct

[Will_A]

We had this question pop up on our monthly LOTG tests for L4's and I'm interested in others opinions.

The FA are adamant it should be a caution for unsporting conduct but I don't see how this is support able with the way the laws are written.

My view is that Law 8.2 states the dropball should be retaken if anyone touches it before it hits the ground. There is no mention of a caution.
As you can't commit a handling offence when the ball isn't in play I don't see how the use of hands can make a difference in this scenario.

 

[Will_A]

Response from Ross Joyce at the FA:

"Thanks for your email and for taking the time to look into this in detail.

The correct answer is a yellow card due to the deliberate nature of the player’s actions. While the ball is not yet in play, the act of deliberately handling it before it touches the ground is considered unsporting behaviour, as it shows a lack of respect for the game.

All questions in the assessment are taken from the IFAB Q&A and ratified by a Laws of the Game review panel to ensure accuracy and consistency."

The IFAB Q&A has a close example that doesn't support a caution.

 

[Archer]

I could understand a caution for DTR. Yet another call for C1(BE) though.

#VoteArcherFIFAPresident2032

 

[JamesL]

A referee we both know asked IFAB the question and their reply was:

"Good morning

It will depend on the exact circumstances as to why the player handled the ball – if it was to gain an unfair advantage then a caution (YC) can be justified.

Best wishes

The IFAB"

 

[Will_A]

A referee we both know asked IFAB the question and their reply was:

"Good morning

It will depend on the exact circumstances as to why the player handled the ball – if it was to gain an unfair advantage then a caution (YC) can be justified.

Best wishes

The IFAB"

I don't understand how handling the ball before it hits the ground could possible give anyone an unfair advantage.

The only caution I can that's supportable in Law is for Delaying the Restart.

 

[JamesL]

I don't understand how handling the ball before it hits the ground could possible give anyone an unfair advantage.

The only caution I can that's supportable in Law is for Delaying the Restart.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but even though it isn't a possibility the motive of the player is still unsporting and so their behaviour is unsporting in that sense.
Also it's not a footballing action and as Ross says it could be perceived as lack of respect for game
I don't like the question myself because it's not a black and white answer. A LOTG quiz should be for black and white, and CPD used for grey and interpretation

 

[Kes]

We had a similar debate on here (well, I did) a short while back where the question of a youth player deliberately picking the ball up during open play was cautionable or not. https://refchat.co.uk/threads/so-what-is-the-right-age-to-give-reds.24560/

My take was that deliberately handling the ball in certain circumstances should always be construed as USB. I still feel the same way and I'm pleased to see that IFAB have given the advice above.

 

[one]

The answer to a LOTG quiz question should be just justifiable in black and white from the book. There should be no debates and no ifs or buts.

There are way too many questions in lotg quizez these days where the answer is in the opinion of the referee.

I actually like IFAB's answer for a change

 

[RefereeX]

I did say at the time of answering this one that I would be surprised if there isn't a bit of a kick up about it, as it's not black and white in law that it should be a caution. Similar to the one I mentioned in another thread about a player taking a free kick before the whistle having been told to wait until after it.

With that said, Ross Joyce had 2 cautions in his match on Saturday and both would have undoubtedly gone down as Archers BE caution code if it existed. Jay Stansfield pretty much refusing to move back at a free kick, but in almost in a dissent-ful way . Mixture of dissent and not respecting the distance = BE. Then Lee Burge point blank refusing to go and get the ball and set ready for a goal kick while his defender was receiving a stretch for 'cramp' from his team mate, Burgey thinking he needed to stand over preceedings despite multiple warnings from Joycey to go and get the ball and set ready for the goal kick - not really delaying the restart as the player was down, but definitely BE behaviour.

 

[JamesL]

I did say at the time of answering this one that I would be surprised if there isn't a bit of a kick up about it, as it's not black and white in law that it should be a caution. Similar to the one I mentioned in another thread about a player taking a free kick before the whistle having been told to wait until after it.

With that said, Ross Joyce had 2 cautions in his match on Saturday and both would have undoubtedly gone down as Archers BE caution code if it existed. Jay Stansfield pretty much refusing to move back at a free kick, but in almost in a dissent-ful way . Mixture of dissent and not respecting the distance = BE. Then Lee Burge point blank refusing to go and get the ball and set ready for a free kick while his defender was receiving a stretch for 'cramp' from his team mate, Burgey thinking he needed to stand over preceedings despite multiple warnings from Joycey to go and get the ball and set ready for the goal kick - not really delaying the restart as the player was down, but definitely BE behaviour.

That last one is a strict interpretation of the new injured player regs that were in the participant charter. If a player is injured and declines the physio the game is meant to restart and if not the player refusing is cautioned.

I think I have remember that correctly. Can't be bothered to go looking lol

 

[RefereeX]

That last one is a strict interpretation of the new injured player regs that were in the participant charter. If a player is injured and declines the physio the game is meant to restart and if not the player refusing is cautioned.

I think I have remember that correctly. Can't be bothered to go looking lol

I mean equally Joycey called the physio on as a 'you're taking too long, I'm gonna call him on for you' - can you do both? But Burge definitely deserved the caution. (The physio didn't end up coming on because as soon as he called for him the player got up, but Burge had already been caution by then).

 

[JamesL]

 

[socal lurker]

And this handling on a DB before it hits the ground is going to happen in what alternate universe?

 

[RustyRef]

And this handling on a DB before it hits the ground is going to happen in what alternate universe?

Especially with the current law and uncontested dropped balls. The referee is dropping it to one team so why on earth would one of their players handle it, and the opposition players can't possibly be close enough to handle it. I understand why they'd have some fairly obscure questions in exams, but they really should relate to scenarios that have any chance of happening and that have a defined sanction in law.

 

[socal lurker]

I think sometimes test writers get bored and lose the thread . . .

 

[one]

I think sometimes test writers get bored and lose the thread . . .

I actually think it's not a bad question. But it's not a lotg question. It's more suitable for discussions on game/situation management, rather than multiple choice wrong/right answers.

Edit: been thinking about this a little more. Here is a very comparable question. I would like to know what the FA "lotg" answer is (in particular in regards to a caution).

A player deliberately takes a free kick from clearly the wrong location. What is the referee's decision?

 

[Russell Jones]

I actually think it's not a bad question. But it's not a lotg question. It's more suitable for discussions on game/situation management, rather than multiple choice wrong/right answers.

Edit: been thinking about this a little more. Here is a very comparable question. I would like to know what the FA "lotg" answer is (in particular in regards to a caution).

A player deliberately takes a free kick from clearly the wrong location. What is the referee's decision?

This scenario is pretty much clear in law. It’s the fifth bullet point in the DTR section. We are meant to caution if we believe the intent of taking from the wrong place was to force a retake (and therefore DTR). One of those which involves a bit of guesswork unless it’s part of an overall pattern of behavior by that team. Suffice to say, I’ve not cautioned for this in over 500 games

 

[one]

This scenario is pretty much clear in law. It’s the fifth bullet point in the DTR section. We are meant to caution if we believe the intent of taking from the wrong place was to force a retake (and therefore DTR). One of those which involves a bit of guesswork unless it’s part of an overall pattern of behavior by that team. Suffice to say, I’ve not cautioned for this in over 500 games

With all due respect you fine sir, the use of the words "this scenario", "clear" and "guesswork" all in the same context doesn't sit well with me.

The whole point is, as far as the information provided in the question, we can't say definitively it is a caution. There can be a number of other reasons for it. It's up to the referee to decide the reason behind it. Had the question said "with the purpose of forcing a retake" then there is a lotg answer.

 

[Russell Jones]

With all due respect you fine sir, the use of the words "this scenario", "clear" and "guesswork" all in the same context doesn't sit well with me.

The whole point is, as far as the information provided in the question, we can't say definitively it is a caution. There can be a number of other reasons for it. It's up to the referee to decide the reason behind it. Had the question said "with the purpose of forcing a retake" then there is a lotg answer.

I also caveated my response with 'pretty much' .

In your scenario you chose the word "deliberately" ... l can see only two reasons for a player to do this, either a) to gain a tactical advantage by taking the free kick quickly (in which case, just a retake) or b) simply to waste time (Caution). I'd suggest that a caution would only be advisable if either there was a clear overall pattern of time wasting and / or this was a 'repeat offence' and the first time had been clearly warned.

I agree with your perspective as regards including this in a LOTG test .. though personally wouldn't do this as it's too rare an event to be worthwhile.

 

[one]

I also caveated my response with 'pretty much' .

In your scenario you chose the word "deliberately" ... l can see only two reasons for a player to do this, either a) to gain a tactical advantage by taking the free kick quickly (in which case, just a retake) or b) simply to waste time (Caution). I'd suggest that a caution would only be advisable if either there was a clear overall pattern of time wasting and / or this was a 'repeat offence' and the first time had been clearly warned.

I agree with your perspective as regards including this in a LOTG test .. though personally wouldn't do this as it's too rare an event to be worthwhile.

'Pretty much' on the same page with this. Another reason, its deliberate, but to just get on with the game and no advantage available or gained (e.g offside free kick kicked backwards twards own goal), in which case just let it flow.