WHU vs Man City

[Jtpetherick1]

You don't think something like that could cause someone to lose their balance running at a high rate of speed if they are suddenly and unexpectedly pulled backward?

Some of you are making this too difficult using the excuse of not wanting to card people. Unsporting behavior is in the laws to catch things like this. Use it and make your match control easier.

And some are inventing hypothetical situations to justify cards that they want to give - I do too, but can't. He could lose his balance and trip and possibly break his neck. Let's call it SFP and be done with it. You cannot caution SPA for a pull back after playing an advantage and cannot decide to call it reckless for match control. Sorry.

 

[Degnann]

I'm with refdad on this one.
If the caution would have been purely for SPA then yes you cannot go back but you can caution for other reasons that have have happened.

 

[one]

This really isn't all that complicated. If you play advantage you cannot go back and caution for SPA unless you are willing to say that the challenge was reckless. That might work if the was, for example, a trip or a lunge, but there's no way you'd get away with that if it was something like a shirt pull.

I had it in a game recently where a long ball was played forward and, knowing he couldn't get it, tried to punch it away. He got it wrong though and it went through to an attacker on the left wing who failed to beat the keeper one on one. The attacking team went ballistic saying it should be a red, but there was no way it would have been DOGSO due to lack of control and wide angle, so instead of cautioning for SPA I did nothing, to which they went even more ballistic. Took a bit of explaining it is fair to say but the law is clear there cannot be a caution in that situation.

While I agree it is not that complicated, you are over simplifying this. What you have written implies that SPA and reckless are the only two cautionable offences. Or at least they are the only two that can happen at the same time. We know clearly they are not.

The incident in your game is a perfect example where a player has shown lack of respect for the game (or behaved in an unsporting manner in general) and i don't care where in the field it happens or if it involved SPA/DOGSO or not, if I play advantage, I'll go back to it and caution for lack of respect for the game if the temperature of the game demands it, and it sounds like the temperature of your game needed that caution. This caution is not contrary to to the lotg because you are not cautioning for SPA.

 

[GraemeS]

"Lack of respect for the game" is the catch all we use when something "feels" like a card, but there isn't actually any justification for it.

I'm technically permitted to book someone for sneezing if I feel like it shows a lack of respect for the game. That doesn't make it right.

 

[one]

"Lack of respect for the game" is the catch all we use when something "feels" like a card, but there isn't actually any justification for it.

I'm technically permitted to book someone for sneezing if I feel like it shows a lack of respect for the game. That doesn't make it right.

Not sure which side of the debate you are on, but just in case. You are comparing sneezing to someone who deliberately tries to punch the ball to get an income from it (note I did not say to SPA) saying because the former is not right cautioned therefore neither is the latter. I am not sure if that remotely is good comparison to justify a point in a debate.

To be clear, under the lotg you don't have to justify USB under the listed items. If you are happy with it being unsporting, then caution for it.

 

[Jorik0907]

"Lack of respect for the game" is the catch all we use when something "feels" like a card, but there isn't actually any justification for it.

I'm technically permitted to book someone for sneezing if I feel like it shows a lack of respect for the game. That doesn't make it right.

On the other hand, this clearly is a lack of respect for the game though. I'd say it obviously makes it right to caution for it because this is what that "get out of jail free" clause in the law is for because we know the laws don't cover everything that *should* be cautionable in the regular offenses

 

[GraemeS]

On the other hand, this clearly is a lack of respect for the game though. I'd say it obviously makes it right to caution for it because this is what that "get out of jail free" clause in the law is for because we know the laws don't cover everything that *should* be cautionable in the regular offenses

There is a very specific clause that very very specifically says this should not be considered a cautionable offence.

You can follow the very specific clause that explicitly describes this exact situation we are discussing (SPA that is then "cancelled out" because an advantage/QFK is played). Or you can ignore that specific clause that specifically describes the incident and instead, point at the generic "catch-all" clause that we all know exists only to allows you to caution for things the lawmakers didn't think of.

While technically neither is actually wrong (because as I say, you are entitled to caution for pretty much anything that takes your fancy), I think it's very clear what the law wants you to do.

 

[one]

There is a very specific clause that very very specifically says this should not be considered a cautionable offence.

You can follow the very specific clause that explicitly describes this exact situation we are discussing (SPA that is then "cancelled out" because an advantage/QFK is played). Or you can ignore that specific clause that specifically describes the incident and instead, point at the generic "catch-all" clause that we all know exists only to allows you to caution for things the lawmakers didn't think of.

While technically neither is actually wrong (because as I say, you are entitled to caution for pretty much anything that takes your fancy), I think it's very clear what the law wants you to do.

Let's say I am the referee, that exact action happens in the other side of the field and there is no hint of SPA. I played advantage but in my opinion that was USB I hope you agree the law wants me to go back an cautions.

Not that same exact action happens on the defensive half, which is still USB in my opinion. But it is also SPA. I play advantage. Are you saying the law doesn't want me to caution here?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

Let's say I am the referee, that exact action happens in the other side of the field and there is no hint of SPA. I played advantage but in my opinion that was USB I hope you agree the law wants me to go back an cautions.

Not that same exact action happens on the defensive half, which is still USB in my opinion. But it is also SPA. I play advantage. Are you saying the law doesn't want me to caution here?

That is correct. The law does not want you to caution there.

 

[one]

That is correct. The law does not want you to caution there.

I totally disagree with you. Two cautionable offences happen at the same time. SPA and the other USB. Two reasons to point out why the law wants me to caution.
The law wants to punish the more serious offence. In this case law is specific that SPA can't be cautioned. The more serious offence is the one that requires a caution so I punish the more serious offence.

If the other cautionable offence was a reckless tackle then everyone agrees it's a caution, why isn't it a caution if the reason is not reckless but a plain USB?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

I totally disagree with you. Two cautionable offences happen at the same time. SPA and the other USB. Two reasons to point out why the law wants me to caution.
The law wants to punish the more serious offence. In this case law is specific that SPA can't be cautioned. The more serious offence is the one that requires a caution so I punish the more serious offence.

If the other cautionable offence was a reckless tackle then everyone agrees it's a caution, why isn't it a caution if the reason is not reckless but a plain USB?

Because if you are to caution for it being reckless you’ll have reasons - late/from behind/whatever the criteria you decide are met are and there would also be SPA criteria.
In this case the SPA/USB are the same offence and the same criteria are met so the law doesn’t want you to caution. The reasons you’re giving USB are because it was SPA.

 

[one]

Because if you are to caution for it being reckless you’ll have reasons - late/from behind/whatever the criteria you decide are met are and there would also be SPA criteria.
In this case the SPA/USB are the same offence and the same criteria are met so the law doesn’t want you to caution. The reasons you’re giving USB are because it was SPA.

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post. They are NOT the same. If the same act happens on the other side of the field when there is no SPA at all I would still cation for it. It is the cat itself I am cation for not the outcome of it.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post. They are NOT the same. If the same act happens on the other side of the field when there is no SPA at all I would still cation for it. It is the cat itself I am cation for not the outcome of it.

But I take issue with that - I’ve never cautioned for a shirt pull that wasn’t SPA/persistent.
Would you really caution a striker who pulls a defender’s shirt and then goes round the GK and scores? Or does so from a corner? No. You’d give a foul and move on.

 

[GraemeS]

I totally disagree with you. Two cautionable offences happen at the same time. SPA and the other USB. Two reasons to point out why the law wants me to caution.
The law wants to punish the more serious offence. In this case law is specific that SPA can't be cautioned. The more serious offence is the one that requires a caution so I punish the more serious offence.

If the other cautionable offence was a reckless tackle then everyone agrees it's a caution, why isn't it a caution if the reason is not reckless but a plain USB?

Define this non-specific "other USB" that you keep using. Unsporting behaviour covers a wide range of things, some of which the law says can be overruled by allowing a QFK, some of which would stand as cautions regardless. Without being more specific, it's not possible to accurately answer your question.

EDIT: Partially ninja'd by @Jtpetherick1 . Unless you can explain what makes that foul a cautionable offence without referencing the field position, it would be overruled.

 

[one]

But I take issue with that - I’ve never cautioned for a shirt pull that wasn’t SPA/persistent.
Would you really caution a striker who pulls a defender’s shirt and then goes round the GK and scores? Or does so from a corner? No. You’d give a foul and move on.

No when it's a quick simple shirt pull. But if it prolonged and the defense keeps trying to get out of it to continue playing and the striker doesn't let go, I absolutely would. The games expects nothing but. At one stage the laws specifically mentioned that they should be cautioned.

Maybe I should explain, SPA and DOGSO are outcomes. They are not offences offences on their own defenders stop promising attacks and deny goal all the time without being punished. They are only offences when the happens with an action which is an offence on its own. When that happens you have two offences at the same time. So for SPA, if the action that caused it was a simple offence (like a carless foul) sanction the more serious offence. But if advantage was played you can't sanction. However if the action that caused it was on its own a cautionable offence, you still have to sanction the more serious offence. If advantage was played that won't be SPA but the action that caused it.

 

[one]

Define this non-specific "other USB" that you keep using. Unsporting behaviour covers a wide range of things, some of which the law says can be overruled by allowing a QFK, some of which would stand as cautions regardless. Without being more specific, it's not possible to accurately answer your question.

EDIT: Partially ninja'd by @Jtpetherick1 . Unless you can explain what makes that foul a cautionable offence without referencing the field position, it would be overruled.

This is what the law says:

Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, including if a player:

Clearly there are some circumstance that a player can be caution for USB which are not listed there. What makes those USB? Opinion of the referee. For example in my opinion a prolonged shirt pull or a diving handball (goalkeeper save type) with the right context are those which are not listed.

If you can think of any that are not listed, you have answered your own question. If you can't, you need to think why the laws left that list open ended.

 

[GraemeS]

This is what the law says:

Clearly there are some circumstance that a player can be caution for USB which are not listed there. What makes those USB? Opinion of the referee. For example in my opinion a prolonged shirt pull or a diving handball (goalkeeper save type) with the right context are those which are not listed.

If you can think of any that are not listed, you have answered your own question. If you can't, you need to think why the laws left that list open ended.

Obviously there are some possibilities that the list cannot include. But the choice to leave the list open ended doesn't trump anything that is actually explicitly written elsewhere in the laws.

Maybe I'm losing track a little here, so I'll try to reframe this discussion.
1) There are challenges that warrant a yellow card based only on the nature of the challenge.
2) There are challenges that don't warrant a yellow card based only on the nature of the challenge.

(I would immediately argue that both of the examples you give (prolonged shirt pull and diving handball) fall in category 2 by default. Carried out in a contextless void, neither of them would require a caution. Yes it's hard to imagine a reason a defender would do them if not to save a goal/SPA, but we'll add the context later)

But, some of the challenges in either of the above categories will qualify for SPA, as a result of the position on the pitch and the context of the players involved. In those cases you again have two options: stop play, give the FK, administer the card (either for SPA or for whatever reason it falls into category 1, it doesn't really matter), or allow an advantage/QFK and then at the next stoppage, administer a card ONLY if it falls in category 1.

Allowing the advantage/QFK for a "category 2 foul" and then going back to give the caution anyway is what you seem to be proposing and what I do not think is permitted. You either have to find an actual reason to put it in category 1 (and no, I do not consider "showing a lack of respect for the game" to qualify), or accept that you should have stopped play if you wanted to give the caution.

 

[one]

Allowing the advantage/QFK for a "category 2 foul" and then going back to give the caution anyway is what you seem to be proposing and what I do not think is permitted.

This is incorrect. I am only proposing going back to caution in your category 1 but with one caveat. change the word "challenge" to "actions".

I would immediately argue that both of the examples you give (prolonged shirt pull and diving handball) fall in category 2 by default. Carried out in a contextless void, neither of them would require a caution. Yes it's hard to imagine a reason a defender would do them if not to save a goal/SPA, but I'll get to that

If you want to put them in category two then that is your opinion. In many cases I would not agree with it but I would respect it. Because they are "in the opinion of the referee".
I have the prolonged shirt pull a few times every season. In most cases they are not SPA, but done due to the fact that players don't like to be cleanly beaten (skinned). They rather get a caution than let the opponent get away with it. So they continue holding on to the shirt untill the opponent gives up try to get away. This often ends up in retaliation but I digress and it's a topic of its own.

The fact you say "by default" tells me you concede there are none default cases. Go down that path and think what you would do if it was also SPA and you played advantage.

 

[GraemeS]

This is incorrect. I am only proposing going back to caution in your category 1 but with one caveat. change the word "challenge" to "actions".



If you want to put them in category two then that is your opinion. In many cases I would not agree with it but I would respect it. Because they are "in the opinion of the referee".
I have the prolonged shirt pull a few times every season. In most cases they are not SPA, but done due to the fact that players don't like to be cleanly beaten (skinned). They rather get a caution than let the opponent get away with it. So they continue holding on to the shirt untill the opponent gives up try to get away. This often ends up in retaliation but I digress and it's a topic of its own.

The fact you say "by default" tells me you concede there are none default cases. Go down that path and think what you would do if it was also SPA and you played advantage.

I thought for a bit we were getting to the same page, and then I read that last question. By "by default" I meant that the starting point for the action in isolation is no card. By the time you stack in context and level of aggression, that default may change - but "context" means it may become SPA and "level of aggression" means it may become reckless. Either of those means you would show a card....unless further context then rules out the option of SPA.

But to answer your question, we need to go back to the other boring roundabout discussion that comes up on here every few months - the question of "what makes a good advantage?" And what this change in the law does is require us to consider the choice of a caution for SPA as part of the "advantage maths".

When deciding if you should signal for advantage or not, you now have to ask yourself "Is this a good enough advantage that they'd rather have the chance instead of a FK and SPA caution?" That's a higher bar than the old laws where you could choose to show the card regardless, so it was simply a choice of ceremonial FK vs opportunity. So in theory, you should choose advantage less often when SPA is a factor. But once you've made the choice to play the advantage, you're stuck with that choice and the fact you can't caution for SPA alone - even if it turns out to be the worst advantage in the world.

 

[one]

You haven't answered the question I asked earlier. The law clearly indicates there are USB actions which are not part of the list in the lotg. Can you give me an example.