feels like BS to me that answer tbh
Liverpool v Everton
- Thread starter Paul_10
- Start date
- Status
nah, its making it up as you go
it's the sort of answer you come up with when the observer points out its neither SPE or reckless. there's no way you think about it on the field.
and for that reason it's BS
in this context?
The holding offense was slightly different, and it was a first yellow card; but it was a holding offense which was neither SPA nor reckless, but which was flagrant and which everyone wanted and still wants to see cautioned, so I gave a caution and reported it as UB- Lack of respect for the game.
fair enough
And, just to be clear, I can't possibly be "making it up as I go along" and also fabricating the justification after the fact. I don't appreciate being accused of two things simultaneously which cannot logically both be occurring at the same time. I also don't appreciate being accused of doing something shady when all I'm doing (and all I'm advocating be done) is perfectly within the lines of the LotG. Ultimately, I have no idea what your objection is nor do I know what you're arguing. Are you saying that a caution for UB-Lack of Respect is not applicable here? Or are you saying that you find it impossible that any referee, of any standard up to and including PGMOL's elite list, does not have suitable knowledge of the LotG to know that he or she can caution for UB-Lack of Respect in instances whereby the player has done something that the referee believes should be cautioned but which doesn't fall under any other category for cautioning? If it's the latter, then I find that hard to believe because, at least in my circles, we often refer to UB-Lack of Respect as the "catch all" category.
it's a simple foul (that you see multiple times a game). it's not an act showing any lack of respect for the game in any conscious or unconscious way
So....nothing like this offence then?
It is similar in that it was a holding offence which was neither SPA nor reckless, but which the majority of stakeholders (players, coaches, and spectators) believed should be a caution.
Nothing "flagrant" about it - it's an incredibly minor hold (if any), coupled with leg contact initiated by the attacker. It's a nothing foul, and not every foul needs a booking.
You can't say that a foul shows a lack of respect for the game. If I was observing and a referee tried that one in the debrief I'd still be laughing long after I'd got back in the car, would probably still be chuckling as I wrote the report
I certainly think I'd be more likely to give a second caution if I'd just sent off an opponent for a second caution, can't deny that thought wouldn't enter my head. But that doesn't negate the fact that Konate's second foul was totally different to both of Young's cautions, and it certainly wasn't a mandatory caution.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Have you been taught to use lack of respect like this by your tutors/coaches?
I have not.
- Status