IFAB response when previously asked
"
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
"
Of course I didn't mean that post....
However, if I read this right, the responses are not well phrased (so probably genuine IFAB!). I'll say nowt about the way that bit of the law is phrased.
Is this how it should read?
Q: 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?
A: It could be USB in its own right especially if it provokes a notable reaction
Q: 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?
A: 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?
A: Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution.
The first answer implies that it's more likely to given as USB if the player fouled retaliates. Not a good principle.
The second answer perhaps is at odds with the original Q about
prolonged shirt-pulling. If that can be USB, why would the "spirit of the law" not expect a caution? It's only for SPA that advantage negates a caution.
The third answer is just mixed up. Nowadays, not every shirt-pull is to be given as a foul, but it should be phrased "not every foul is a caution" rather than "every foul is not a caution".
Anyway, the offence in this game was Bajcetic pulling Palmer's shirt for four seconds until Palmer grabbed Bajcetic's arm and wrestled him off. It didn't prevent the attack (it was off the ball) but meant Palmer wasn't available for a pass. The "advantage" quickly came to nothing, and the FK could have been given. (Is there a grey area where advantage is played, but doesn't really happen, and a FK is then awarded - so advantage is played
and a FK is given; what does that do for not cautioning for SPA?)