Man Utd v Southampton

[RustyRef]

With all due respect but this statement is the one which indeed is just making it up.
The law is clear the only cautionable offence that is downgraded is SPA. Any other cautionable offence (which you limited to just two with no basis in law) can still be cautioned, even if it happens at the same time as a SPA, or interfering with.
Only a couple of weeks ago we had a double caution where the first one interfered with a promising attack but was also either not respecting the distance or general USB. Are you saying caution for not respecting the distance is circumventing the law?

I was talking about the act of committing a foul, so didn't include failing to respect the distance.

What I disagree with is the "general USB". The law is crystal clear that if you play an advantage for an SPA offence the player is not cautioned. For the avoidance of doubt the text is "if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned". It doesn't say that you can circumvent this law by making up a random "general USB" caution to get around it. SPA will generally just be that, shirt pull, pulling a player back by the arms or shoulder, blocking someone off, etc, it will very rarely fall into any of the other cautionable offences.

 

[one]

I was talking about the act of committing a foul, so didn't include failing to respect the distance.

What I disagree with is the "general USB". The law is crystal clear that if you play an advantage for an SPA offence the player is not cautioned. For the avoidance of doubt the text is "if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned". It doesn't say that you can circumvent this law by making up a random "general USB" caution to get around it. SPA will generally just be that, shirt pull, pulling a player back by the arms or shoulder, blocking someone off, etc, it will very rarely fall into any of the other cautionable offences.

I think you are being unfair here by continually saying "making up a USB to go around SPA". 'we' have always said we would caution this even if there was no spa involved. And if we won't caution without a spa then we won't caution with spa+advantage. That clearly negates your perception of circumventing.

 

[Big Cat]

The law is crystal clear

The only thing that's 'crystal clear' about 'Law' (a word that grates on me), is that it's ambiguous (and more often, contradictory) and all over the place.
FWIW however, despite my objectionable opinion, I'm concurring there's not enough going on in the clip for me to caution (particularly S7)

 

[GraemeS]

I think you are being unfair here by continually saying "making up a USB to go around SPA". 'we' have always said we would caution this even if there was no spa involved. And if we won't caution without a spa then we won't caution with spa+advantage. That clearly negates your perception of circumventing.

I don't buy that argument for a second. You're suggesting that if the attacker was instead a midfielder going sideways or backwards and the opponent pulled him down as part of a challenge for the ball, it would be cautionable? It's the fact that he's progressing towards goal at speed and with a disorganised defence that makes this SPA and introduces the possibility of a caution, the foul alone is not worth a yellow card at all.

 

[socal lurker]

I don't buy that argument for a second. You're suggesting that if the attacker was instead a midfielder going sideways or backwards and the opponent pulled him down as part of a challenge for the ball, it would be cautionable? It's the fact that he's progressing towards goal at speed and with a disorganised defence that makes this SPA and introduces the possibility of a caution, the foul alone is not worth a yellow card at all.

I think you may be confusing a specific event above with the concept, which is what I believe @one was addressing.

The overall concept is crystal clear in the Laws: the only caution that is forgiven when advantage is played on a PA is a caution for SPA. If the action is otherwise cautionable, the caution comes out at the next stoppage. I sure hope we all agree on that much as it is black letter law.

From there, as a concept an egregious pulling down of an opponent when there is no promising attack could be a USB caution. As a concept if that same pulling down offense were to stop a promising attack, it would still be a caution if advantage were played--not for SPA, but the same reason as the pulling down without a PA (though in reality we would probably expect it to be even more egregious before cautioning in the context of advantage played because of expectations relating to non-cautions on SPA-advantage).

And I think we would also all (most?) agree that such a caution in the pulling + SPA + advantage context is going to be extremely rare in the real world and can never be an excuse to ignore the forgiveness of a SPA caution when advantage is played, regardless of how much we may personally disagree with that Law change.

(I suppose one could go down that analytic road that any pulling down that reaches the cautionable threshold is probably also reckless, but that's a somewhat different discussion.)

 

[Max2]

Just book ‘em, bo***cks to it

 

[Anubis]

Just book ‘em, bo***cks to it

End of day its not the worst idea. Dont want booked? Dont do anything that could be considered as a bookable offence

 

[one]

I don't buy that argument for a second. You're suggesting that if the attacker was instead a midfielder going sideways or backwards and the opponent pulled him down as part of a challenge for the ball, it would be cautionable? It's the fact that he's progressing towards goal at speed and with a disorganised defence that makes this SPA and introduces the possibility of a caution, the foul alone is not worth a yellow card at all.

@socal lurker explained this well. I think you are too fixated on the specific OP (which I have not seen) or another video posted here (which I don't think is a caution) that you are missing the concept.
The disagreement is on if a prolonged shirt pull should be a USB or not. This is independent of SPA. If you think a prolonged shirt pull is not USB then if it comes with a SPA then fine with no caution. But if I think a prolonged shirt pull is a USB independently then I am gong to caution after SPA+advantage.

What amounts to a USB caution is subjective in any type of USB. Even in a challenge that could be reckless. Your argument is the same as telling me I made up a challenge to be reckless to caution for SPA because you don't agree with the challenge being reckless.

 

[RustyRef]

@socal lurker explained this well. I think you are too fixated on the specific OP (which I have not seen) or another video posted here (which I don't think is a caution) that you are missing the concept.
The disagreement is on if a prolonged shirt pull should be a USB or not. This is independent of SPA. If you think a prolonged shirt pull is not USB then if it comes with a SPA then fine with no caution. But if I think a prolonged shirt pull is a USB independently then I am gong to caution after SPA+advantage.

What amounts to a USB caution is subjective in any type of USB. Even in a challenge that could be reckless. Your argument is the same as telling me I made up a challenge to be reckless to caution for SPA because you don't agree with the challenge being reckless.

I think this may be an England vs across the pond thing. I still don't find any reason in law to caution for a foul that was just SPA unless you go looking for reasons to find a caution.

And this might just be the "English thing" that we tend to avoid cautions that aren't actually needed.

 

[one]

I think this may be an England vs across the pond thing. I still don't find any reason in law to caution for a foul that was just SPA unless you go looking for reasons to find a caution.

And this might just be the "English thing" that we tend to avoid cautions that aren't actually needed.

Define 'needed'

 

[RustyRef]

Define 'needed'

What the game expects / spirit of the game, both of which get talked about a lot. Indeed, even Lord Elleray references it in his reply to the IFAB question (if you believe he is answering and not a random answering in his name )

 

[one]

What the game expects / spirit of the game, both of which get talked about a lot. Indeed, even Lord Elleray references it in his reply to the IFAB question (if you believe he is answering and not a random answering in his name )

Now we are talking about excuses for making things up I am joking of course. Those 'definitions' leave a lot of grey area. I think what I have a problem with is the argument that it is plain wrong rather that a difference of opinion.

 

[one]

On the subject of an act being USB because it does or can provoke a reaction, it is not a new concept. It is already in use for USB for goal celebrations.

 

[GraemeS]

@socal lurker explained this well. I think you are too fixated on the specific OP (which I have not seen) or another video posted here (which I don't think is a caution) that you are missing the concept.
The disagreement is on if a prolonged shirt pull should be a USB or not. This is independent of SPA. If you think a prolonged shirt pull is not USB then if it comes with a SPA then fine with no caution. But if I think a prolonged shirt pull is a USB independently then I am gong to caution after SPA+advantage.

What amounts to a USB caution is subjective in any type of USB. Even in a challenge that could be reckless. Your argument is the same as telling me I made up a challenge to be reckless to caution for SPA because you don't agree with the challenge being reckless.

So there are two clips referenced in this thread and I'm the one at fault for making a statement based off those clips?

Sure, if something completely different happened then I might give a different decision. If a player pulls another opponent back in order to spit at them it might be a red card. So what?

 

[socal lurker]

And this might just be the "English thing" that we tend to avoid cautions that aren't actually needed.

And elsewhere we card just for the heck of it?!

I kinda suspect that on the field you, I, and @one wouldn't be far off on what we cautioned for, though we might characterize it differently. Neither of us are trying to make up a card to evade the SPA advantage rule.

 

[RefIADad]

A “big shirt pull” can absolutely be considered reckless as defined in Law 12.

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

A blatant shirt pull is acting with disregard to consequences.

 

[one]

So there are two clips referenced in this thread and I'm the one at fault for making a statement based off those clips?

Sure, if something completely different happened then I might give a different decision. If a player pulls another opponent back in order to spit at them it might be a red card. So what?

No one is at fault mate Nothing is broken. Its just a discussion.

 

[Russell Jones]

I think this may be an England vs across the pond thing. I still don't find any reason in law to caution for a foul that was just SPA unless you go looking for reasons to find a caution.

And this might just be the "English thing" that we tend to avoid cautions that aren't actually needed.

I think you're right Rusty. A year's refereeing in Denmark (in peak Covid times) made clear to me that (in that country) the highly unsporting act of a blatant prolonged hold was expected to be cautioned even when not reckless or SPA. This just isn't the case in England. Personally, I believe the continental approach is more in keeping with the spirit of the game. But I'm not going to throw away club marks by going down that route in Contrib games

 

[deusex]

I think you're right Rusty. A year's refereeing in Denmark (in peak Covid times) made clear to me that (in that country) the highly unsporting act of a blatant prolonged hold was expected to be cautioned even when not reckless or SPA. This just isn't the case in England. Personally, I believe the continental approach is more in keeping with the spirit of the game. But I'm not going to throw away club marks by going down that route in Contrib games

Speak for yourself. In Manchester there'd be murders if this wasn't cautioned for.
I've yet to find a person (off this forum) that DIDN'T expect a caution.