WHU vs Man City

[GraemeS]

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.

What point do you think you're making here? If we can genuinely think of something that isn't covered by any other part of the law, then we get to look at this crazy edge case and call it something you might choose to caution for. But unless I'm missing something, that seems totally irrelevant.

You keep trying to prove this same point by bringing up other example of things that are covered elsewhere in the LOTG. A "diving save" - which is handball - which is a DFK offence and so must be classified as C/R/UEF. Persistent pulling - again, the law requires you to classify this as C/R/UEF. And if you deem it to have been done in only a careless manner, your options for giving a caution once you're played the advantage do not exist.

If you can come up with something that you think qualifies then we could have that discussion. But that doesn't remotely invalidate my point, because the "open-endedness" exists to allow punishment for things that are so unlikely it would be strange to explicitly list them. Not for things that have clearly defined punishments, but when the referee doesn't like that punishment and wants to do something different.

 

[PinnerPaul]

There was borderline one in QPR v Cardiff last Saturday. Defender pulled arm of attacker, then took a swing with leg, both failed to stop the attack, advantage played, but Cardiff player WAS cautioned once ball went out of play. I guess in this case it was the swing with the leg that made it 'reckless' for the referee?

 

[Jorik0907]

I've seen Anthony Taylor and other UCL refs give advantage for holding someone without it being clearly a promising attack and then going back and caution for USB or showing a lack of respect for the game. IFAB, imo, does give leniency to the referee to use the ethos of the laws to uphold them in 'what football expects'. Wouldn't surprise me to see the laws updated to reflect that deliberate handballs (which were mandatory YCs in Spain for years for being USB- lack of respect) and extra holding/pulling are cautionable offenses. A diving save of course can't be CR/EF and even though it says that SPA-H is a YC, it's never stated other handballs can't fall under lack of respect for the game, which e.g. just catching the ball in midfield can obviously be.

 

[RefIADad]

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.

People are taking this SPA thing far, far too literally. There are clearly fouls that we don't want as a part of our matches, and if we don't sanction them we will lose match control. As referees, we can still use our judgment to know when we need to caution for a foul on which we still play advantage. I know IFAB is trying to take any subjectivity out of our refereeing decisions, but that's impossible.

I would sleep well at night knowing I cautioned a clearly cynical and intentional foul as USB even if advantage materialized, because I would caution that type of foul at any other point or situation in the game.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

People are taking this SPA thing far, far too literally. There are clearly fouls that we don't want as a part of our matches, and if we don't sanction them we will lose match control. As referees, we can still use our judgment to know when we need to caution for a foul on which we still play advantage. I know IFAB is trying to take any subjectivity out of our refereeing decisions, but that's impossible.

I would sleep well at night knowing I cautioned a clearly cynical and intentional foul as USB even if advantage materialized, because I would caution that type of foul at any other point or situation in the game.

As would I, but it remains a fact that you’d be wrong in law.

 

[Degnann]

But I take issue with that - I’ve never cautioned for a shirt pull that wasn’t SPA


As would I, but it remains a fact that you’d be wrong in law.

Just because you haven’t cautioned for it doesn't mean cautions for pulling that aren't SPA don’t exist.

just as a generalisation.
My caution codes here show one for pulling and another for SPA.
the pulling one would be negligible if they always fall under SPA

 

[Jtpetherick1]

Just because you haven’t cautioned for it doesn't mean cautions for pulling that aren't SPA don’t exist.

just as a generalisation.
My caution codes here show one for pulling and another for SPA.
the pulling one would be negligible if they always fall under SPA
View attachment 4658

In what scenarios have you B1Fd?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

In what scenarios have you B1Fd?

And frankly, what does that matter? It remains a fact that the law does not allow you to caution for the single offence that occurs for a SPA foul.

 

[GraemeS]

As would I, but it remains a fact that you’d be wrong in law.

Agreed - at no point am I saying that I like this law change, only that it seems clear to me what we are and aren't allowed to do.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

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.

At least we’ve gotten away from claiming it’s reckless for not considering the outcome on account of being SPA.

 

[RefIADad]

Just because you haven’t cautioned for it doesn't mean cautions for pulling that aren't SPA don’t exist.

just as a generalisation.
My caution codes here show one for pulling and another for SPA.
the pulling one would be negligible if they always fall under SPA
View attachment 4658

The correct interpretation of this law is, "If the one and only reason you were going to issue the caution was because of SPA, then you don't issue the caution if there is an advantage."

If it's a careless, simple, run-of-the-mill foul that wouldn't be a caution at other times but could have stopped a promising attack, then you don't caution if you call advantage. If it's a foul that is a caution at any other time, you caution it even if the advantage materializes.

I wouldn't caution a careless, simple shirt grab at midfield, so if that type of foul doesn't hinder an advantage I'm not coming back to caution it at the next stoppage. However, since I would caution a clearly deliberate handling (as in "I'm throwing my hand out there with the absolute intention to handle the ball" or an intentional "I'm grabbing a handful of jersey and not letting go under any circumstances" whether that's 80 yards from goal with no advantage or if I end up playing advantage, I'm going to caution that even if I play advantage. There's obviously an element of "I know it when I see it" to this, but I know the fouls I would caution at any time, and I'm going to continue cautioning those even if an advantage materializes. The Laws aren't granting immunity from those types of fouls simply because an advantage is being played.

 

[socal lurker]

And frankly, what does that matter? It remains a fact that the law does not allow you to caution for the single offence that occurs for a SPA foul.

This is simply not true. As @one pointed out earlier, the USB list is not intended to be all inclusive. If the R finds an act USB, then it is, even if it does not fall within a specific checkbox. There will be rare fouls that can be unsporting in their nature without being SPAA or reckless. But they are rare.

To go back and caution after advantage, it has to be cautionable as something other than SPAA. I think we all agree on that part. For me, that means you can't consider the fact there was a promising attack--you can only consider the foul itself. (The fact that it was also SPAA is irrelevant in either direction.) There are--rare--fouls in the back third that we would caution as unsporting even without being reckless.

 

[Degnann]

In what scenarios have you B1Fd?

I’ve issued 10 yellow cards in total so I’m not sure I’m best fit to answer that question.
Simply adding to the conversation

 

[santa sangria]

I think “blatant holding” is the problem. It’s not in the book but it’s been deemed a YC offence by UEFA et al, but it’s not clear to me if it’s a variant on SPA or USB.

 

[RustyRef]

Cautioning for a lack of respect for the game, or anything else, is a cop out. The law was changed to bring SPA in line with DOGSO, if you can sell that the challenge was reckless then fine, go for it. But if it was something like a minor shirt pull you can't call that reckless, and the fact that law specifically says that you can't caution after playing advantage for SPA means you would be incorrect in law to make up a "lack of respect for the game" caution. Exactly the same as if you played advantage on a clear DOGSO, you can't go back and red card for it even if you felt the challenge had a lack of respect for the game.

I don't necessarily agree with this particular law change, but it is what it is. Just as I don't agree with the new law about drop ball for the ball hitting the referee, but I still applied it tonight even though it led to a dropped ball on the edge of the defending team's penalty area and a load of grief for me and explaining to do.

 

[one]

Cautioning for a lack of respect for the game, or anything else, is a cop out.

But if it was something like a minor shirt pull you can't call that reckless,

if you can sell that the challenge was reckless then fine, go for it

I find your post contradictory. Selling it for reckless, even though it is not reckless is not a cop out?

A prolonged shirt pull example is generally not reckless. If you were to make it one, when it is not is just shoe horning it. Its the very definition of a USB (even if it is not SPA). Putting it under reckless is just as much a deviation (if not more so) than it is under Lack of respect.

you would be incorrect in law to make up a "lack of respect for the game" caution.

I am not making this up. I genuinely believe this is USB, under lack of respect or not. I am not trying to get around the new law. I would caution (based on context) even if this was not SAP. Hope this explains it better.

 

[RustyRef]

I find your post contradictory. Selling it for reckless, even though it is not reckless is not a cop out?

A prolonged shirt pull example is generally not reckless. If you were to make it one, when it is not is just shoe horning it. Its the very definition of a USB (even if it is not SPA). Putting it under reckless is just as much a deviation (if not more so) than it is under Lack of respect.

I am not making this up. I genuinely believe this is USB, under lack of respect or not. I am not trying to get around the new law. I would caution (based on context) even if this was not SAP. Hope this explains it better.

I didn't say that you should sell it for reckless, rather if you are going to caution for it that is the only option you have.

If you caution you would be wrong because the fact law states you cannot caution for SPA after playing advantage trumps any kind of get out clause.

 

[one]

I didn't say that you should sell it for reckless, rather if you are going to caution for it that is the only option you have.

If you caution you would be wrong because the fact law states you cannot caution for SPA after playing advantage trumps any kind of get out clause.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I am not cautioning for SPA. It is a different USB I am cautioning for. An unspecified USB, which the law allows, or lack of respect which also the laws allows. I would caution for those regardless of if it is SPA. How is that wrong in law?

The law was not put in there to let players get away with other USB if it is also SPA. It was there to remove a caution if the USB was only SPA and advantage was played, which 'supposedly' means promising attack was not stopped.

 

[JamesL]

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.

How much does punching balls pay?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

How much does punching balls pay?

#AskTheIFAB