CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Put it this way: I'f I'm assessing you (or anybody who has ever read the LOTG) and you do that, you'll be back to U/8 next week.
The laws are exceptionally clear on this. What do you THINK the law means then?
goalie cautioned for handling deliberate pass from team mate
- Thread starter happy whistler
- Start date
Put it this way: I'f I'm assessing you (or anybody who has ever read the LOTG) and you do that, you'll be back to U/8 next week.
The laws are exceptionally clear on this. What do you THINK the law means then?
Doubt that very much
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
So, what do you think the law means?
And if you don't think being caught making a blatant error in law - particularly one which can lead to an appeal against the match result (eg if the keeper is sent off for a 2nd caution) - can affect your appointments then you're quite mistaken. Maybe I was exaggerating the extent, but not the principle
And if you don't think being caught making a blatant error in law - particularly one which can lead to an appeal against the match result (eg if the keeper is sent off for a 2nd caution) - can affect your appointments then you're quite mistaken. Maybe I was exaggerating the extent, but not the principle
Last edited:
Teams can appeals match results?? Shocking.
And I think the law means that a keeper cannot be cautioned for c1- deliberate handball...
@Brian Hamilton and @lincs22 , as resident assessors please could you confirm whether or not be cautioning a gk for picking up a back pass, which would otherwise have gone into the goal, would result in me getting a severely lowered mark?? Or even result In demotion or match result being appealed
I would not expect a caution for the act of picking up back pass (ie Application of law), but I may accept a caution for USB (ie Match control). It would depend a lot on the tone of the game, the score, time left, etc.
An incorrect caution is not dealt with at L4 with the same level of punishment as a missed caution. @CallumRushton13 - as you are shown as a L7, I would not worry yet.
There would be no grounds for an appeal against the result.
HM, calm down. Teams cannot appeal a match result based on a referee's incorrect application of law. Certainly not at the level Callum is operating at.
I'm with Lincs on this one. If the circumstances called for it and the actions broke up a promising attack, then it's possible that a caution may keep things under control.
Last edited by a moderator:
My only issue with your use of the 'promising attack' words is that goes entirely counter to the Laws as they're written.
I'm honestly curious to know why this would be a valid caution. It's got potential to be a useful tool in the toolkit, but it's going to have to be something that is defensible when being assessed and the assessor brings up that point of Law and says "so, what was your justification to caution the goalkeeper?"
Alex. Page 123 of the current LotG says this
commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a
promising attack
You say that to the average run of the mill assessor, he is not going to go scurrying for a copy of the LotG to look it up (and yes I know it refers to a foul not a goalkeeper controlling the ball with his hands). If he accepts that, doesn't query it during the de-brief or mention that he wants to go check on it, then he cannot later introduce it into the report. As Lincs says though, you are highly unlikely to be penalised for an extra caution but you will be penalised for one that you miss, i.e. a mandatory caution not given.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Please show me which page in the laws the cautionable offence of 'deliberate handball' is listed.
Must of been added to one of the pages that is for notes
Deliberate handball isn't a cautionable offence and as the law clearly states a goalkeeper can't be guilty of any misconduct related to handling the ball in their own area then it's not a caution.
Be strong and keep your cards in your pocket, if anyone quieries you offer to prove them that your right by showing them after the game. Step up to the challenge in your match control.
The keeper hasn't stopped a good attack by means of a foul it's just a technical offence.
Be strong and keep your cards in your pocket, if anyone quieries you offer to prove them that your right by showing them after the game. Step up to the challenge in your match control.
The keeper hasn't stopped a good attack by means of a foul it's just a technical offence.
Okay, I understand the law as ridiculous as I find it and tbh, if I'm presented with a situation like the one above then I'm nkt sure what I would do... My gut tells me it's a yellow (it should be imo) but the laws tell me I'm not supposed to card for any gk handling offence resulting in an IFK...
The laws are pretty fair imo, a goalkeepers instinct is to go for the ball with their hands. If it's in their area they're protected, if it's outside they're aware of the potential consequences.
But a gk can prevent a goal, illegally, and go unpunished
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I think this is where the confusion has arisen.
Those caution codes are administrative only. The LOTG have 7 cautionable offences for players. The vast majority of cautions are simply USB.
The c1 etc are simply to tell the administrators WHY a player was cautioned for USB.
The massive problem I find with this sort of thing is that it often does cause confusion for referees - often refs will look at those to see what's cautionable, and mistakenly think that things that are listed there are mandatory cautions when they may not be, things like that. I find it really just leads to a big misunderstanding in the laws.
When discussing what's cautionable and what isn't, ignore those codes. They are administration only. They have absolutely nothing to do with what happens on the field, what you can and can't do, or how to interpret scenarios. Forget they exist.
Deliberate handling, for instance, is only cautionable under USB. So you were thinking 'as long as I just don't put it down as c1, it's not a handling related caution' - but take the c1 out of the equation, and all you have is USB. Given that's what DHB is always cautioned under, that's why it's clear that when the laws state 'cannot be guilty of any handling related misconduct', there is absolutely no way around it. You can't make leaps or legalistic statements - because that's why the law said 'handling related'. You can't say 'I'm not booking him because he handled the ball, I'm booking him because he handled the ball which stopped a goal'. No matter how far you try to extend that chain of though, it always goes back to the fact that the entire action was handling. The impact upon play may vary depending on the exact incident, but the LOTG have stated the impact upon play doesn't matter - either way, play is impacted by the handling offence, and the LOTG state he cannot be cautioned for any misconduct related to the handling offence. That 'related' word is what stops you from trying to find any sort of loophole.
A keeper handling then throwing it at an opponent's face is different because the throwing is a separate action after the initial handling offence. 2 consecutive actions, as opposed to a single action having a particularly severe impact upon play.
There are a number of ways in which the laws are quite unfair, and I would agree that a keeper who deliberately handles the ball because a deliberate kick to him from a teammate is about to be intercepted morally deserves a caution, but the LOTG are clear that he cannot be.
So, as referees we can bend the law sometimes but we cannot break it. We cannot go against what the law states. Like it or not, you have to uphold the unfair laws as well as the fair ones.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Down under we find errors in law (eg actions that are clearly incorrect by the text) far more serious than errors in interpretation (eg poor judgement over the seriousness of a foul). A caution here would be an automatic 'fail' of an assessment. Missing a caution may not be.