Offside/DOGSO/SPA

[Refollie]

For me it’s a yellow for the hold (not SPA). But you’d be justified just giving a free kick

 

[RustyRef]

For me it’s a yellow for the hold (not SPA). But you’d be justified just giving a free kick

For what though? If the attacking player is offside it can't be SPA or DOGSO, certainly wasn't a reckless challenge, so what would you be cautioning for? That's the question I'd be asking as the observer in the changing room after by the way, I wouldn't be telling you that you were wrong, rather asking you to talk me though your thinking process.

 

[socal lurker]

Haven’t we had this debate a dozen times as to whether a non-reckless cynical foul that doesn’t meet SPA criteria can still be generic USB?

 

[santa sangria]

Haven’t we had this debate a dozen times as to whether a non-reckless cynical foul that doesn’t meet SPA criteria can still be generic USB?

…and we wait for the law book to be updated to cater for this “non-reckless cynical” AKA blatant holding foul.

It is bizarre that this is taught at the highest levels but not in the book and clear as mud!

 

[wazztie16]

I know it's a few days old, but it's been on my mind.

For me, it's covered pretty well in law here -
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

I'd be selling a caution for USB on the basis that the offending player committed the foul not knowing that the attacking player was in an offside position, but it can't be DOGSO. The pull was an unsporting action in the game

I think it's just about how you sell it all.

But I think that would be my go to.

 

[socal lurker]

I'd be selling a caution for USB on the basis that the offending player committed the foul not knowing that the attacking player was in an offside position, but it can't be DOGSO. The pull was an unsporting action in the game

And how is that relevant to SPA? There was no promising attack to stop.

There are many pages of discussion/debate on this elsewhere on the site, which really boil down to two schools of thought.

The first is that SPA is a specific provision by which IFAB has established when cynical fouls can be cautioned, and if it isn’t SPA or reckless, the referee is not authorized to caution for a holding foul, even if the R doesn’t like it.

The second school of thought is that the language of Law 12 says USB is a cautuonable offense, and this reading is supported by the fact the list for USB says “including,” which indicates it is not an exclusive list of USB offenses, but intended to identify the most common flavors for referees. Under this interpretation, the R has wide discretion to conclude that a particular tactical foul is sufficiently egregious to warrant a caution, separate and apart from the SPA criteria.

I fall into the second school—but also acknowledge that Rs should be very cautious about fitting “SPA like” offenses into USB. For me, I think the test is whether I would caution for the nature of the foul if there was not an attack underway, but an ordinary play at midfield with a cynical foul. But until IFAB more clearly defines this in the Laws, I think moth schools have supportable positions.

 

[RustyRef]

And how is that relevant to SPA? There was no promising attack to stop.

There are many pages of discussion/debate on this elsewhere on the site, which really boil down to two schools of thought.

The first is that SPA is a specific provision by which IFAB has established when cynical fouls can be cautioned, and if it isn’t SPA or reckless, the referee is not authorized to caution for a holding foul, even if the R doesn’t like it.

The second school of thought is that the language of Law 12 says USB is a cautuonable offense, and this reading is supported by the fact the list for USB says “including,” which indicates it is not an exclusive list of USB offenses, but intended to identify the most common flavors for referees. Under this interpretation, the R has wide discretion to conclude that a particular tactical foul is sufficiently egregious to warrant a caution, separate and apart from the SPA criteria.

I fall into the second school—but also acknowledge that Rs should be very cautious about fitting “SPA like” offenses into USB. For me, I think the test is whether I would caution for the nature of the foul if there was not an attack underway, but an ordinary play at midfield with a cynical foul. But until IFAB more clearly defines this in the Laws, I think moth schools have supportable positions.

I think I’d go further and say that as the law was changed to say there should be no SPA caution if advantage is played, that is pretty clear to me that they don’t want tactical fouls to be penalised when they don’t actually affect the outcome of play.

Cautioning under generic USB strikes me as a cop out to avoid applying the laws properly.

 

[socal lurker]

I think I’d go further and say that as the law was changed to say there should be no SPA caution if advantage is played, that is pretty clear to me that they don’t want tactical fouls to be penalised when they don’t actually affect the outcome of play.

Cautioning under generic USB strikes me as a cop out to avoid applying the laws properly.

You certainly have a reasonable position. I think there are cynical fouls that are USB that aren’t spa. For me, that is more about how the foul is conducted than the tactical advantage being sought—there is a big difference between grabbing a p,Ayer’s arm as part of jostling for the ball and grabbing an opponent’s shirt from behind or wrapping him up in both arms.

As far as changes, I’d also note that SPA was changed to remove the “in order to” concept and be clear that “innocent” fouls that happen to stop a promising attack are cautioned. Those fouls, in particular, make sense not to caution if advantage is applied.