IFAB Q and A
- Thread starter one
- Start date
)
I suppose there is a spectrum of situations that could fit under the description from pre-meditated playground style climbing on shoulders to something where, maybe as a byproduct of jostling in the area, the forward has ended up using a team mate's shoulders for lift.
The former would definitely be USB. The latter, unless there are other considerations, wouldn't be a YC if it was an opponent, so no reason it should automatically be so if a teammate
The former would definitely be USB. The latter, unless there are other considerations, wouldn't be a YC if it was an opponent, so no reason it should automatically be so if a teammate
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Some of the Q&A drive me nuts. I agree with what @one implies—as written, this is USB or a good goal. And IFAB says it is categorically not a goal, but only might be a caution. That is wholly unsupportable in the Laws. (Sure, we can contrive situations where it could meet the criteria for PIADM, but that is hardly inherently true.) this is a horrible answer, especially as it doesn’t even attempt to give a basics for the IFK—and will give fodder to the ideas that refs can give IFKs while weaseling out of giving eh caution (see discussions on “mine.”
I suppose the wording of the Q&A could allow for it to happen accidentally.
Unless it's been countermanded in the 60 years since, the original IFAB decision was:
"If a player leans on the shoulders of another player of his own team in front of him in order to head the ball, which he succeeds in doing, the Referee shall stop the game, caution the player for ungentlemanly conduct and award an indirect free-kick to the opposing side."
"in order to" implies intent.
And whether or not a goal is scored is irrelevant.
But yes, if not for USB, what is the offence if accidental?
(It's odd with the expansion of the laws, how much that used to be explicit is now just assumed. I think I preferred it when the laws were simple and then expanded by "advice to players", "advice to referees", and IFAB decisions - which together were in some cases longer than the law.)
Unless it's been countermanded in the 60 years since, the original IFAB decision was:
"If a player leans on the shoulders of another player of his own team in front of him in order to head the ball, which he succeeds in doing, the Referee shall stop the game, caution the player for ungentlemanly conduct and award an indirect free-kick to the opposing side."
"in order to" implies intent.
And whether or not a goal is scored is irrelevant.
But yes, if not for USB, what is the offence if accidental?
(It's odd with the expansion of the laws, how much that used to be explicit is now just assumed. I think I preferred it when the laws were simple and then expanded by "advice to players", "advice to referees", and IFAB decisions - which together were in some cases longer than the law.)
Thank you. I was sure I remembered this but couldn’t find it. When I first qualified I was given a sheet listing examples of things that could be classed as USB (obviously then it was ungentlemanly conduct) and this was shown on there.
Maybe it was considered “ungentlemanly” but not necessarily “unsporting “
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Unsporting behaviour was simply the replacement term for ungentlemanly conduct from 1997 onwards - there was no change in the underlying meaning, or the offences that it covered.
Anyway, it's a totally ridiculous answer. This is USB - or if it isn't, there's no reason to give an IFK. You can't say it's definitely an indirect free kick and then imply it might or might not be USB - as others have alluded to, that just doesn't fit within the framework of the laws.
When I took my first refereeing exams in 1998, this was one of the questions. Like you, I couldn't see the right answer from the multiple choice questions, but the nice old chap who was leading it looked over my shoulder and said 'well you can't give a goal', which was the clue I needed...!
IFAB responded on Twitter when asked about which Law this violated. This was the response...
As the Laws cannot list every single possible offence, referees must act within the 'spirit' of the Law (Law 5 and introduction to the Laws of the Game). The attacker has clearly gained an unfair advantage and should be penalised.
http://bit.ly/RefereeDecision
http://bit.ly/AboutTheLaws
As the Laws cannot list every single possible offence, referees must act within the 'spirit' of the Law (Law 5 and introduction to the Laws of the Game). The attacker has clearly gained an unfair advantage and should be penalised.
http://bit.ly/RefereeDecision
http://bit.ly/AboutTheLaws
Yes, IFAB making it up cos they don't want two books
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
So refs now have license to just penalize things they don’t like how they think fit? I find doubling down on this answer mind-boggling. Nothing needs to be made up here—it‘s been taught as USB (and before that I gentlemenlike conduct) for decades. Does this mean we can now give IFKs for calling “mine,” too? Sigh.
one
RefChat Addict
There are missing dot points in the lotg list of IFK and DFK offences in law 12:
- Anything else that the referee thinks should be an offence
Last edited:
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
They did the same on a recent twitter post about a deliberate handball that stopped a ball from reaching an attacker in an offside position. Even though they said clearly that this therefore wasn't SPA, they still recommended a caution for it .... 
