The Ref Stop

Is blatant holding SPA?

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
Hot off the heels of a recent thread where I explained I know not to give a yellow card after a stopping-a-promising-attack foul and advantage…

I was working with a colleague today. Classic long shirt pull as the attacker crossed the half way line. He wriggled free. Ref called a great advantage. And then gave a yellow card at the next stoppage.

After the match I asked the referee what the card was for, he said blatant holding, I asked if that was SPA, reckless or what? We couldn’t agree a concrete answer based on the LotG.

So, what do you think?
 
The Ref Stop
There's been Q&As saying it is.


Answers from IFAB (Elleray) " ". March 2022

Can prolonged shirt pulling be considered unsporting behaviour in it's own right or does it need to stop or interfere with a promising attack?

"It could be USB in its own right especially if it provokes a notable reaction"

If it can be unsporting behaviour in it's own right then can you answer the below scenarios?

1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour?

" In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify"

2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour?

" Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution"
 
Any act of fouling a player is technically unsporting, so I don’t buy the “unsporting behaviour” justification that some referees use to give a yellow card for in these situations.
 
A bit of a pet hate of mine this, there have been lots of occasions of top level referees playing advantage for a textbook SPA offence and then going back to caution. I could understand that if they had ripped the shirt off the opponent's back, or wrestled them to the floor, as that could be classed as reckless, but sometimes a caution is given after just a minor shirt grab.
 
To be clear there is no promising attack in this scenario.

Regardless of what foul it is, if you were going to caution had you stopped play immediately then you should caution in next stoppage after playing advantage (with a few exceptions in law) .

For me "Prolonged shirt holding" when it is not SPA situation is usually in retaliation of being well and truly beaten in skill and done when there is no chance to play the ball. It's not a footballing action and doesn't have a place in the game. More often that not it draws a retaliatory rection which is another reason to punish more harsh than a normal foul. In most cases it deserves a (unspecified) USB caution.
 
one said:
To be clear there is no promising attack in this scenario.

Regardless of what foul it is, if you were going to caution had you stopped play immediately then you should caution in next stoppage after playing advantage (with a few exceptions in law) .

For me "Prolonged shirt holding" when it is not SPA situation is usually in retaliation of being well and truly beaten in skill and done when there is no chance to play the ball. It's not a footballing action and doesn't have a place in the game. More often that not it draws a retaliatory rection which is another reason to punish more harsh than a normal foul. In most cases it deserves a (unspecified) USB caution.
Click to expand...
Why is there no promising attack when a defender has a prolonged hold on an attacker crossing the half way line?
 
My take is: blatant holding should be included in the LotG as a cautionable USB. That would solve it.

I guess where we have landed is you can BH-adv-YC and not be wrong…
 
RustyRef said:
Why is there no promising attack when a defender has a prolonged hold on an attacker crossing the half way line?
Click to expand...
What is meant was, the scenario I was giving an answer for was one that was not a promising attack scenario.

But even if it is a promising attack, for me, it should still be cautioned (subject to YHTBT).
 
santa sangria said:
My take is: blatant holding should be included in the LotG as a cautionable USB. That would solve it.

I guess where we have landed is you can BH-adv-YC and not be wrong…
Click to expand...
I've said before that the classic list of cautionable offences is so incredibly out of date as to be almost irrelevant to today's game.

Entering/leaving the FOP without permission has already been combined, but delaying and failing to respect the distance at a restart should be combined too.

SPA should be given it's own "category" that explicitly includes downgraded DOGSO, and reckless challenges should also get their own category (to match the fact that SFP is it's own "thing" within the red card offences).

And I think by taking those two out, that would clear up space for USB to change to "deliberately unsporting acts", which could include blatant/persistent holding as well as the weird things like damaging pitch markings, verbal distraction and circumventing the backpass law. And most importantly, would make it harder to justify using "general USB" for other BS!
 
Cynical and generally gets a reaction from the player being held. I'm normally cautioning for it whether SPA or not. Proactive management I call it which incidentally will form a larger part of a referee's marks on the (new) observation form next season as I understand it.
On the other hand, if being observed and you play advantage as described in the OP, going back and cautioning may well make your observer think you're incorrect in law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top