Not even a yellow either I don't think.
I suppose back to the narrative of 'let's keep it 11 v 11' like in the other post? Haha
Mind boggling
Man Utd v Southampton
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
I suppose back to the narrative of 'let's keep it 11 v 11' like in the other post? Haha
Mind boggling
one
RefChat Addict
To be clear USB codes (or caution codes or send off codes in general) are not lotg matters. There is no such thing as codes in lotg.
Only some FAs use sub-codes for USB. They should all have a 'other' category because not all USBs are specified in law. For instance AAA used in England is not specified in law. If there is no 'other' then lack of respect for the game is the next best fit.
one
RefChat Addict
This can be justified either way. The key justification for me for not cautioning is that they broke it up themselves before anyone else joined in. If caused a mele (three, four or more) I'd definitely be cautioning.
bester
RefChat Addict
Responses from Mr Elleray in bold
Can prolonged shirt pulling be considered unsporting behaviour in it's own right or does it need to
stop or interfere with a promising attack?
It could be USB in its own right especially if it provokes a notable reaction
If it can be unsporting behaviour in it's own right then can you answer the below scenarios?
1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour?
In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify
2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour?
Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution
Can prolonged shirt pulling be considered unsporting behaviour in it's own right or does it need to
stop or interfere with a promising attack?
It could be USB in its own right especially if it provokes a notable reaction
If it can be unsporting behaviour in it's own right then can you answer the below scenarios?
1) If an advantage is played on a shirt pulling offence that would've stopped a promising attack if play was stopped, can the player still be cautioned if the referee considered it to be unsporting behaviour?
In theory it could but the ‘spirit’ of the Law would not expect a caution, which might be difficult to justify
2) An advantage is played from a shirt pulling offence that involves a non-promising attack, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behaviour?
Yes, it could but in the same way that every ‘foul’ is not a caution then every shirt pull is not a caution
Has he got splinters from that fence he is obviously sitting on ...?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think he's essentially saying that yes you can caution for that but, you're opening a big can of worms that probably isn't worth opening unless it's really bad.
LothianRef
Member
This is an interesting one. Around 02.52 into the clip below the St Johnstone player receives a caution (his second so is sent off) for pulling back the Dundee Utd attacker, despite the referee playing advantage after the foul. (Clip doesn't show the card being shown but does show the referee directing him off the pitch)
I actually intended to make a thread about it at the time as I was unsure about the whole SPA/USB cautions and consequences after an advantage.
I actually intended to make a thread about it at the time as I was unsure about the whole SPA/USB cautions and consequences after an advantage.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
thats worthy of a yc in its own right, leaving aside the negation of spa due to the advantage,, no different to coming back from an advantage to produce a card for recklesss
its high, neck near enough, its cynical, and only luck or good conduct from the StJ player prevented a retaliation here. Not even convinced its a pull of the shirt, its more an actual grab on the player, we have caution codes for both holding, and, shirt pulling, avail
i dont know anything about this match but there is also a possibility of persistent, there is a slight hand motion by the referee to indicate a pull back, ( a grab on the player himself, rather than a pull on the shirt), but this could simply indicate this is the one too many foul, rather than the yc foul offence itself, hard to tell or rehearse in a key moment in a derby match, a match littered with history of ramping up the yellows.
Last edited:
Giving Peter Walton a run for his money there in the "back up the ref at any costs" game.
It's a pull on the shoulder for SPA and nothing more, certainly doesn't qualify as reckless. Persistent is possible, but I read that gesture by the referee as a "pull" gesture, the standard teaching for persistent is to point at the locations of the multiple fouls, a single pulling back gesture doesn't read like PI at all to me.
I'm 100% with @Redster , this clip could go into teaching presentations as a perfect example of when the caution should not be shown.
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
Are we genuinely prepared to go down the route of 'that's a yellow because the opponent may have been cross about the foul?' I had a retaliation at the weekend from a clean tackle - I didn't book the man who made it, so that's a fatuous argument.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Maybe take a look at Ellerys response, you know, he of IFAB and every tournament medal known to man.
Nobody is stating anything about an opponent being cross about a foul.
Alarm bells ring at a holding, pulling offence as generally, the legs no longer work, so, the arms then work overtime to free themselves from opponents bondage, proactive refereeing sees a fk and yc for the pull, before the held opponent lashes out, and is themselves red carded for vc.
In the clip, the referee haa gambled on the high level status of the player fouled, trusted that the AR2 will maintain focus on the afters, and has a complience officer who will take retrospective action should anything untoward go unspotted at the time
99% of us are not afforded that luxury.
footballers, esp grass roots ones, have an unwritten code of, if you dont do something about it, I will. As referee you gain the trust of your players to deal with misconduct, when you as referee break that trust, the message you send out is, free for all. The referee is no longer in control of the proceedings, the players are.
"especially if", opens the door to variables. Rather than a definitive.
this is a holding offence in the clip. We have an offence code under USB for holding which applies separate to SPA.
I'd have thought "if it provokes a notable reaction" was the wording that suggests cards may depend on how cross people get.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
ok if we quote the full text used, especially if
meaning there are numerous possibilities ( inc no reaction) but paying particular attention should there be a reaction, For something to be especially, it becomes prominent when weighed up against others.
then it changes the angle again.
If "if's and buts" were candy and nuts....
I'm not going around booking players for careless fouls out of a fear that some other player might at some point possibly think about trying to exact an OTT revenge for a nothing foul. That's not "safe" refereeing, that's tin-foil-hat paranoid refereeing.
If a player commits a bookable offence, they get booked, if not, they don't.
If some other player decides to overreact to an offence, they get disciplined appropriately for that reaction.
We hope that players views line up with ours in terms of what requires a caution and what doesn't and that is enough to keep them in line, but we apply our judgement on that and stand by it. There's some wiggle room based on match temperature, possible repeated minor infringements etc, but we don't go around trying to satisfy what players think should result in a card.
And in this specific case, there is an explicit provision that this shouldn't qualify as SPA because the advantage is played. That law doesn't magically fade from the page because there's a chance the opponent is an idiot.
I'm not going around booking players for careless fouls out of a fear that some other player might at some point possibly think about trying to exact an OTT revenge for a nothing foul. That's not "safe" refereeing, that's tin-foil-hat paranoid refereeing.
If a player commits a bookable offence, they get booked, if not, they don't.
If some other player decides to overreact to an offence, they get disciplined appropriately for that reaction.
We hope that players views line up with ours in terms of what requires a caution and what doesn't and that is enough to keep them in line, but we apply our judgement on that and stand by it. There's some wiggle room based on match temperature, possible repeated minor infringements etc, but we don't go around trying to satisfy what players think should result in a card.
And in this specific case, there is an explicit provision that this shouldn't qualify as SPA because the advantage is played. That law doesn't magically fade from the page because there's a chance the opponent is an idiot.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think the answer was intended to be about how upset the victim gets. I think the point was a pull that was sufficiently out of line and aggressive to reasonably provoke a reaction. He often answers briefly which means they are not always written with perfect clarity, but to me the meaning was pretty clear.
I don't buy some of the arguments here, and the IFAB response is somewhat irrelevant as they don't actually answer the questions.
If it is just SPA and you play advantage you cannot caution, that is clear in law. If it is reckless you should caution, if it ticks a box for PI then you could caution, but anything else is just making it up to circumvent the law.
If it is just SPA and you play advantage you cannot caution, that is clear in law. If it is reckless you should caution, if it ticks a box for PI then you could caution, but anything else is just making it up to circumvent the law.
one
RefChat Addict
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?