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.