A&H

Another first, but have you encountered this?

A

Andy A

Active Member
I would be surprised (but not amazed) if you have.

Blue v Clarets, Blue are too good for this league and decided to take the urine out of their opposition. Clarets were getting very frustrated at their style of play and decided to stop trying themselves after a bit.

A blue player receives the ball towards the mid riff and proceeds to catch it underneath his shirt (you know like he is having a baby) He quickly releases it from under his shirt, I blow my whistle and he is astonished. He was even more astonished when he realised I was going to book him for USB as well :rolleyes: Much to his team mates amusement.

Easiest booking I will ever give I expect, but the best thing is he never even saw it coming :D

I put it through on whole game as C1 UB (unspecified behavior) I assume this is correct?
 
The Referee Store
I would say handball myself. My brother once posed me this question and having double checked my answer what you describe is covered as handball in LOTG.
 
James Long said:
I would say handball myself. My brother once posed me this question and having double checked my answer what you describe is covered as handball in LOTG.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's 100% clear but I suppose it could be argued that it's possible to infer it from the part of the law that says:
touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement
Click to expand...

However in the circumstances described, I think that even if you did call it initially as handball, I'd still be inclined to tack on a USB for acting in a manner that "shows a lack of respect for the game."
 
Handball is a C1 offence which is unsporting behaviour.

The code UB, my understanding, is for other unspecified unsporting behaviour. I've only ever had to use it for verbal distraction.

I think C1 (USB) HB would hit the nail on the head perfectly.

It's all the same really in a roundabout way player is cautioned and fined accordingly.

However, I think it might affect the restart in this instance as if it's not handball your penalising, it's would be an offence not listed so restart would be indirect free kick in law? Happy to be corrected but in all of it the restart is the most important I feel as it will have the most affect.
 
Interesting one. It is clearly a handball in law (as @Peter Grove quotes above from page 82)...but it's also pretty clearly USB.

There are two offenses in my logic
1) Deliberate HB - DFK restart (obviously HB itself isn't necessarily a caution so I'll assume it's not here)
2) USB caution for the way it was done - IDFK restart

I'm sure there is a step process we're supposed to follow here that the more experience hands will shed light on...we are supposed to penalise the most serious offense and here there are two, but what is more serious - a HB with a DFK or an USB caution with IDFK restart?
 
Am I missing something here?

USB - unsporting behaviour which is a caution? Under code C1.

You then have to select the secondary code for C1 which is UB or HB - the confusion is between how to report. I obviously threw a curveball in about restart but it is relevant.

My understanding of UB is unspecified unsporting behaviour. The key for me here is unspecified. The offence is handball in law? So it's a specified offence so I think the outcome should be DFK/Caution/C1HB. Simplified = unsporting behaviour - handball.

What offence would you be penalising if not handball as the unsporting bit comes first? E.g. it was unsporting for him to handle the ball in that way.
 
What I find interesting is in the restart which I think is important. If Andy blew for USB because the guy was being an Arse / showing a lack of respect for the game he would caution and restart with IDFK. Since the arse thing this guy did happens to clearly be a handball in law I'm just curious whether it's correct to restart with a DFK...just not clear to me which is more serious, a deliberate handball or USB, and how we should treat it when it happens at the same time.
 
Handball can be Unsporting behaviour. I think in this scenario it clearly is unsporting so caution and DFK as I believe the offence should be punished as handball rather than an unspecified offence.
We could be getting confused over USB & UB acronyms :)
 
Hmm. Ok - I'm still learning so maybe I confused myself. In my mind HB is unsporting behavior when it's cynical etc...as I'm writing this it's clicking that perhaps the manner you HB can be unsporting in other ways (like in this case)...but the way I first read this it seemed like Andy was just dealing with general USB and my read on it was that the correct action would of been HB whistle, caution for USB - showing lack of respect for the game, DFK. Rather than USB whistle, caution, IDFK.

Good news is in a game we agree there would be yellow and a DFK so the players would be certain we all know what we're doing :)
 
DHB includes a held object. This is inarguably DHB. That part is easy.
I'm more curious about the caution - what's the reasoning for USB? Bearing in mind that USB for DHB would only be in an attempt to score/deny a goal or break up an attack.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
DHB includes a held object. This is inarguably DHB. That part is easy.
I'm more curious about the caution - what's the reasoning for USB? Bearing in mind that USB for DHB would only be in an attempt to score/deny a goal or break up an attack.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my point...the HB is probably not a caution in this case as it's an attacker so the caution is for an additional infringement which is unsporting behavior because the guy acted in a way that shows a lack of respect for the game. So there are two offenses in my mind and I was asking if someone could clarify how we manage, which is more serious, and what the restart is. I guess it would be like a reckless tackle - whistle is for the DFK infringement and then there is a caution for USB.

What just had me thinking that the DFK offense was not a cautionable offense and the USB offense is a caution - therefore is the USB offense more serious, resulting in us punishing that one and then the restart would be an IDFK.

It might be irrelevant but I find it interesting...
 
Last edited:
WilliamD said:
That was pretty much my point...the HB is probably not a caution in this case as it's an attacker so the caution is for an additional infringement which is unsporting behavior because the guy acted in a way that shows a lack of respect for the game. So there are two offenses in my mind and I was asking if someone could clarify how we manage, which is more serious, and what the restart is. I guess it would be like a reckless tackle - whistle is for the DFK infringement and then there is a caution for USB.

What just had me thinking is that the DFK offense was not a cautionable offense and the USB offense is a caution - therefore is the USB offense more serious, resulting in us punishing that one and then the restart would be an IDFK.

It might be irrelevant but I find it interesting...
Click to expand...

I will think punishment of a better goal scoring opportunity (i.e. indirect free kick) is a more serious punishment than an indirect free kick.
 
WilliamD said:
What just had me thinking is that the DFK offense was not a cautionable offense and the USB offense is a caution - therefore is the USB offense more serious, resulting in us punishing that one and then the restart would be an IDFK.
Click to expand...
I think maybe you're over-complicating things here. As I understand it, it's only an IFK if the reason you stopped play was to administer the caution - and this was for an "offence, not mentioned in the Laws". In this case you've stopped play for the handling (an offence that is mentioned in the Laws) so that is what determines the restart. Also, the law on simultaneous offences is for situations where you can only punish one offence and have to decide which one of the two to punish. Classic example is the player who takes a free kick then handles the ball before another player has touched it. You can't punish both the "second touch" by giving an IFK and the handling by giving a DFK so you choose the handling. Here you can punish both the handling with a DFK and the USB with a caution so that's what you do.
 
Kind of what I was saying.. but then qe are back to the actual reporting question probably the least important bit (kind of!).

HB or UB? The offence whether directly or indirectly in law is specified so to me UB isnt the right caution code as thats for an unspecified offence in law.
 
WilliamD said:
That was pretty much my point...the HB is probably not a caution in this case as it's an attacker so the caution is for an additional infringement which is unsporting behavior because the guy acted in a way that shows a lack of respect for the game. So there are two offenses in my mind and I was asking if someone could clarify how we manage, which is more serious, and what the restart is. I guess it would be like a reckless tackle - whistle is for the DFK infringement and then there is a caution for USB.

What just had me thinking that the DFK offense was not a cautionable offense and the USB offense is a caution - therefore is the USB offense more serious, resulting in us punishing that one and then the restart would be an IDFK.

It might be irrelevant but I find it interesting...
Click to expand...
I think you're worrying too much about the technicalities of it all. I can see that the caution would be justified being 'unsporting behaviour' in the truest sense of the word. Maybe Law 4, using equipment inappropriately. If the player grabbed a water bottle and used that as an extension of the hand I'd be comfortable with a caution even though it wouldn't fit into the normal DHB caution - the equipment use adds another element to it which we're considering, and which the instructions on when to caution for DHB probably didn't consider. So I don't think we need to do any major gymnastics to figure out how a caution fits in the law. USB is broad enough.

We've stopped play because he deliberately handled the ball. We're issuing a caution because of the manner in which he used equipment to do so. In terms of reporting I'd probably think general UB.

Incidentally, the caution here is completely discretionary. Doesn't have to be given. Could just be a bit of silliness and players are mucking around, for instance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top