Keeper Releasing the ball

[PinnerPaul]

i'd disagree (as you might expect)

for an absolute matter of fact decision i could potentially see where you're coming from but i cant envisage such a scenario.

this one could easily be opinion / interpretation (as i said, a yellow here definitely supportable if administered for the right reason) of the ref and i wouldn't want to question / be questioned every time i make a call just because the AR didn't quite understand why the ref did something

Bench to Ar "whats that a yc for?"
Ar "unsporting behaviour gaffer, your lad has intentionally gone to block their keeper kicking the ball"
bench "but is that a yc?"
Ar " yeah, falls under unspecified unsporting behaviour"

Agree totally on your view on the GK scenario, but surely 2 yellows and no red would be a scenario where you would HAVE to get involved as an AR for example - there are others, perhaps more common place.

Penalty, where ball had already gone out of play previously might be another one - agree about these being limited to factual decisions.

 

[JamesL]

Agree totally on your view on the GK scenario, but surely 2 yellows and no red would be a scenario where you would HAVE to get involved as an AR for example - there are others, perhaps more common place.

Penalty, where ball had already gone out of play previously might be another one - agree about these being limited to factual decisions.

As you point out, these are factual.
You can't give a penalty because the ball was out of play.
My record shows thats mateys second caution.
These are the bailouts I am talking about, and would want.

 

[es1]

Agree totally on your view on the GK scenario, but surely 2 yellows and no red would be a scenario where you would HAVE to get involved as an AR for example - there are others, perhaps more common place.

Penalty, where ball had already gone out of play previously might be another one - agree about these being limited to factual decisions.

For sure, if I think the ref has given 2 yellows and no red I'll be waving in airplanes and rugby tackling them before they restart play if needed!

 

[PinnerPaul]

For sure, if I think the ref has given 2 yellows and no red I'll be waving in airplanes and rugby tackling them before they restart play if needed!

I agree, just picking up on your "Can't envisage a scenario." comment.

IF, has happened quite often, a referee asks you at HT (or FT) if you thought something he didn't caution for merited a yellow or the opposite, your opinion on a yellow (or red) shown, surely we are then allowed to discuss openly?

I agree, I certainly wouldn't be starting any conversations, as an AR, with " I think you got that wrong.........." though !

 

[Anubis]

There's nothing factual about it. As several other people have already said, it's a referee's judgement call as to whether this deserves a caution.

Just from the description (and without knowing the overall circumstances of the game) I'd probably say this didn't need a caution - however it's ultimately an allowable call for a referee to make. It could perfectly plausibly be seen as USB.

As far as I'm concerned, an AR has no place questioning a referee's judgement call.

Preventing gk releasing, as has been discussed on here often, by itself is not a caution.

if the referee has said.....the yc was for preventing the gk releasing the ball , the yc is incorrect.

 

[Wolf_Ref]

I think that that is a sellable YC under the 'unspecified reason' (what I unofficially to refer to as being a muppet YC) - it is all in the opinion of the referee and what is credible, however, for something like that, I wouldn't be questioning during the match, but I might ask in the changing rooms - as the referee in the middle will be managing the game in their own way etc..

Agree that it isn't automatically a caution, but one can be cautioned for it if the referee deems that it is unsporting behaviour.

 

[es1]

I think that that is a sellable YC under the 'unspecified reason' (what I unofficially to refer to as being a muppet YC) - it is all in the opinion of the referee and what is credible, however, for something like that, I wouldn't be questioning during the match, but I might ask in the changing rooms - as the referee in the middle will be managing the game in their own way etc..

Agree that it isn't automatically a caution, but one can be cautioned for it if the referee deems that it is unsporting behaviour.

I call it being a d*ck head. Both work!

 

[Wolf_Ref]

I call it being a d*ck head. Both work!

Well, after a few pints I go even further than that with my vocabulary - however, I shall behave myself and not share that here!!

 

[one]

This debate diverted to what the AR should do. I think most of us are in agreement.

As far as ref, I'd only caution this if it is reckless or on the very rare occasion SPA. As explained in the OP it's not a caution for me. I am thinking the OP ref thought it is a mandatory caution just like some think every blatant handball is a mandatory caution and put it under USB. As someone pointed out this was debated extensively a little while ago with a video.

If I was to caution players for being a d!ckhead, I'd have 3 or 4 red cards in each of my games.

 

[Tim - 2013]

I deleted the video since it cant be used here.

Neymar steals ball from keeper attempting to put the ball in play and scores. Yellow card.

Is it automatically a YC for preventing a GK putting the ball in play? No.

Is it unsporting behavior? Yes.

Is the YC needed for game control? Perhaps. That's when I use it.

First minutes of the game, probably a warning. Kind of like being within 10 yards of a FK.

Now, upgrade the action to a statue before the ball or kicking the ball while the ball is about to be kicked by the keeper? Yes, YC.

I've given the YC when the game is already moving along and there's tension, and this act can be fuel to the fire if not nipped.

Now, as a AR, I am told to signal if the referee is not looking where the foul occurs or if its near me, I have a better POV.

If the Ref is watching the forward interfere with the keeper, I'm not popping flags. Behind his back? Then would the Ref apply advantage? I would not challenge a YC by a ref for interfering with keeper release. It's USB and a IDFK.

 

[one]

Is it unsporting behavior? Yes.

Why is that?

In many cases the attackers don't even know it's an offence but even if they did, it's just an offence. Like many other offences.

Is every blatant (knowingly) handball USB? Is every blatant but careless foul (trip, push....) USB?

 

[Tim - 2013]

Neymar received a yellow card. Why did the referee give the card?

He just kicked the ball while it was in the air, between the keeper's release and their attempt to kick it.

Dangerous play? That's not an automatic YC. Just an IDFK.

Interfering is an infringement resulting in an IDFK.

So why did Neymar get a YC? Because it is unsporting behavior. Every player, at this level, knows they can't do this. It is USB.

A blatant handball is USB. Especially if it is tactical. It doesnt even need to be a goal scoring opportunity or potential offensive run.

If the person trying to prevent a keeper releasing the ball defends like a basketball player and blocks it with their hands, no ref is giving a DFK and no card.

 

[Tim - 2013]

The YC doesn't have to be issued if a referee believes that game control can be done with a simple warning.

I have been taught some actions will warrant either a warning or a card depending on severity of the action.

The videos of my training of FKs goes over within 10, retreating or not, encroaching, the statue and defenders with a foot on the ball. It starts at watch and see, act and warn, and the inevitable YC. The statue is almost yellow where the foot on the ball is straight.

Yes, a careless foul can be USB. That's why a tactical careless foul can earn a YC.

 

[one]

Neymar received a yellow card. Why did the referee give the card?

And there are plenty occasion where a yellow as not given. You can learn from TV but I would suggest thinking twice before basing all your rationale on specific incidents you see on TV. Check another thread where a referee didn't send off a player untill after 3rd yellow card. Or two recent EPL threads where failing to respect the distance was a second yellow in one but a retake in another.

A blatant handball is USB. Especially if it is tactical. It doesnt even need to be a goal scoring opportunity or potential offensive run.

The laws specifically changed to stop referees from doing this.

Yes, a careless foul can be USB. That's why a tactical careless foul can earn a YC.

Yes it can be but your logic says it always is.

Anyway, I have stated my case. Preventing a keeper from releasing the ball being yellow is a myth and some top level referees doing it doesn't help. Just like throwing the ball downwards in a throw in is a foul throw, even seen it given in EPL).

 

[Tim - 2013]

The LOTG provides the referee the authority to issue a yellow card for a handball. If the referee determines that it is USB or PI , a YC can be issued. No myth exists since it is in the law.

Throwing the ball downwards is not a foul throw if the thrower:
1. Stands facing the field of play,
2. Have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline,
3. Throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play.

The basis of Newmar's YC is found in the Law. The decision to repeat the card personally has nothing to do with the level of the referee. If my assessor agrees that my interpretation of the Law is correct in my assessment and application, then I dont doubt my actions.

Please feel free to support your positions using the laws.

I know not all referees come to the same decision to issue a card, but that doesn't mean one of us is wrong. We simply need to provide the basis of our decision in our report.

 

[Peter Grove]

A blatant handball is USB. Especially if it is tactical. It doesnt even need to be a goal scoring opportunity or potential offensive run.

That's not what the law says. The law only specifies a mandatory caution for USB in relation to handling when a player:

handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack.

The law says nothing about a "blatant handball" being a caution for USB.

And as it stands, according to the law it does have to be a promising attack for the caution to be mandatory.

Now, the law does provide some leeway, so that a referee has discretion to give a caution under the "catch-all" category of USB for showing "a lack of respect for the game" (which basically can mean anything the referee wants it to mean) but let's not pretend that the law gives any explicit or implicit authorization for giving a YC for "blatant" or tactical handball.

In fact, as @one points out there was even a specific change to the law (in 2016) brought in to stop referees from giving yellow cards for "tactical" handling offences that simply stopped an opponent gaining possession, precisely because too many referees were using this as an excuse for way too many cautions.

 

[RustyRef]

That's not what the law says. The law only specifies a mandatory caution for USB in relation to handling when a player:



The law says nothing about a "blatant handball" being a caution for USB.

And as it stands, according to the law it does have to be a promising attack for the caution to be mandatory.

Now, the law does provide some leeway, so that a referee has discretion to give a caution under the "catch-all" category of USB for showing "a lack of respect for the game" (which basically can mean anything the referee wants it to mean) but let's not pretend that the law gives any explicit or implicit authorization for giving a YC for "blatant" or tactical handball.

In fact, as @one points out there was even a specific change to the law (in 2016) brought in to stop referees from giving yellow cards for "tactical" handling offences that simply stopped an opponent gaining possession, precisely because too many referees were using this as an excuse for way too many cautions.

Indeed. This caused me a problem last season, a long ball was played and a defender, realising he was in trouble, tried to catch the ball. He couldn't reach it cleanly though and just knocked it into the path of an attacker so I played advantage. Said attacker completely fluffed his lines and missed the one on one. Of course the attacking team then went ballistic when no card came out. There was way too much doubt for DOGSO, and I couldn't caution him for SPA as I'd played advantage. I suppose I could have used the generic unsporting behaviour caution, but that would technically be wrong as there was no doubt I'd played advantage. In fairness to them, once I explained the law change they were fine with it and took it out on the misfiring striker.

 

[Kent Ref]

Did this use to be a mandatory yellow card?

I remember many years ago sending a player off for doing this twice when i was assessed. The assessor said i was correct to do this. I got promoted that season.

 

[RustyRef]

Did this use to be a mandatory yellow card?

I remember many years ago sending a player off for doing this twice when i was assessed. The assessor said i was correct to do this. I got promoted that season.

Not that I can remember. But it can be very easy to sell as a caution, it might stop a promising attack (not likely at grass roots though) but can also be dangerous. I've seen a keeper badly injured when an attacker went to block his kick and the keeper kicked at full force with the top of his foot going into studs.

 

[socal lurker]

Did this use to be a mandatory yellow card?

I remember many years ago sending a player off for doing this twice when i was assessed. The assessor said i was correct to do this. I got promoted that season.

Like @RustyRef I don't it ever being a mandatory caution. But I think there used to be more of an expectation that cynical handling was appropriate to caution beyond analyzing SPA. Sufficiently cynical handling does show disrespect for the game, but there seemed to be too broad of a trend toward cautioning hanlding.