Unsporting Behavior

[Shackleton]

The LOTG mention several specific examples of unsporting behavior: simulation, jersey removal to celebrate a goal (OK otherwise?), deliberate trick to circumvent the backpass law, unfairly distracting or impeding throw-ins, certain deliberate handlings, certain holdings of opponents, and failure to leave the field after doctors have been authorized to enter.

Is the list of specific actions cited in the LOTG exhaustive? If not, are there any guidelines as to what constitutes unsporting behavior (and conversely what is never unsporting behavior)? What other actions are commonly ruled unsporting behavior?

The reason I started thinking about this topic is the tactic used on the free kick by the Red Bulls in the game against DC United. Whether this is an offside infraction has already been debated. But, could the actions of the NY players in deliberately taking up positions near the GK in an offside position (presumably for no purpose other than to distract or unnerve him) be considered unsporting behavior?

[dadman]

I won't speak to the NY-DC free kick (as I have a horse in that race ;) ), but one you've left off your list that I'd like feedback on as well is yelling to distract/unsettle a player. Sort of like calling an opponent off the ball when she can't see you (and know you're on the other team), but inarticulate. Am I right in that understanding that this behavior is unsporting and cautionable as such?

[Ref Flunkie]

I won't speak to the NY-DC free kick (as I have a horse in that race ;) ), but one you've left off your list that I'd like feedback on as well is yelling to distract/unsettle a player. Sort of like calling an opponent off the ball when she can't see you (and know you're on the other team), but inarticulate. Am I right in that understanding that this behavior is unsporting and cautionable as such?

Yes, this is USB. USB is pretty much a catch-all for things that the referee feels a need to caution that don't fall under the other cautionable offenses. In theory, this could be taunting, yelling at a player, fouling in a reckless manner, etc. As for the offside play being considered USB, I do not think you would find much support for that, as what they were doing was within their right as players. They have every right to walk into an offside position if they feel the need. The punishment for the crime is to call them offside, not give them a caution for USB. Players do not have a right to taunt, yell at a player, foul in a reckless manner, etc. This would be my argument for the difference.

[nsa]

Is the list of specific actions cited in the LOTG exhaustive? If not, are there any guidelines as to what constitutes unsporting behavior (and conversely what is never unsporting behavior)? What other actions are commonly ruled unsporting behavior?
Basically any action that the referee feels is an affront to the Spirit of the Game may be sanctioned with a caution for UB. (I do not include the Crimson Heifer ploy in that category. ;) )

The .ppt presentation for Law 12 Misconduct at ussoccer.com includes three slides crammed with examples of UB. (As a player, I can attest to committing another three pages worth of offences that should have been UB. :) )

- referee and player - dr. jekyl and mr. hyde -

[ref47]

ub is not explained in the lotg. examples are covered in the q&a's; but not exhaustively. the atr also has a non-exhaustive listing at 12.28.1. the ref gets to decide what "brings the game into disrepute," and any other actions that he/she considers unsporting.

[Shackleton]

As for the offside play being considered USB, I do not think you would find much support for that, as what they were doing was within their right as players. They have every right to walk into an offside position if they feel the need. The punishment for the crime is to call them offside, not give them a caution for USB. Players do not have a right to taunt, yell at a player, foul in a reckless manner, etc. This would be my argument for the difference.

I found the 1998 ATR online and reviewed the specific examples of USB listed in it. Among them was "verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart." If one accepts that the NYRB players took up their positions soley to distract the GK, then I fail to see why this should be different from verbal distraction.

[Wreave]

Yes, this is USB. USB is pretty much a catch-all for things that the referee feels a need to caution that don't fall under the other cautionable offenses. In theory, this could be taunting, yelling at a player, fouling in a reckless manner, etc. (snip) Players do not have a right to taunt, yell at a player, foul in a reckless manner, etc. This would be my argument for the difference.

Agreed. A U19 player did this in a game on Saturday - as he was rushing another player who was receiving a quick pass, he let out a yell. The receiving player got the ball and made a quick pass, so as I went by the yelling player, I admonished him not to do that. He responded, "I can yell at the guy to distract him into messing up the pass." I said, "No, you can't. It's unsporting." He did it again, not as strongly with about five minutes to go, but as his team was down 2-0, a card didn't seem necessary for match control.

It is amazing to me how many youth players will try to get away with this, though. Play the game with your feet, not with your mouth!

[mvgary]

I had adult game where defender sat on the ball with no one within 20 yards of him. I thought about USB but made no call and both AR's agreed (grades 7 and6). Did not go over well with other team.

Months later we were at adnvanced clinic and we brought this up. Caution -USB. Knew it bothered me for a reason.

[BC_Ref]

It is amazing to me how many youth players will try to get away with this, though. Play the game with your feet, not with your mouth!

Haven't ever heard this at U19. Heard at U12/U13. Generally a quick - no battlecries or something similar (I've given one girl a no yodelling comment - was she ever loud) does the trick. Mostly seen at the bronze level, so this gets a chuckle and a don't do it again comment. At the gold/metro level, I wouldn't be chuckling since they should know better.

[USSF REF]

Agreed. A U19 player did this in a game on Saturday - as he was rushing another player who was receiving a quick pass, he let out a yell. The receiving player got the ball and made a quick pass, so as I went by the yelling player, I admonished him not to do that. He responded, "I can yell at the guy to distract him into messing up the pass." I said, "No, you can't. It's unsporting." He did it again, not as strongly with about five minutes to go, but as his team was down 2-0, a card didn't seem necessary for match control.

With all due respect, because I like everything you post here and I enjoy chatting with you. -- You warned him, and you were right to, on the first play a booking would have been too much (unless he screamed into the players ear). However, You should have booked him on the second occasion, IMO. Send the point home. Maybe the match didn't need that card, but the player certainly did. Maybe you cautioning him there prevents him from doing it in other matches. That players needs to modify his behavior. And now he left the game having been told not to do that by the ref, who then allowed it a second time, maybe he assumes that ref's are powerless to stop this sort of crap, but we're not. Better he learns this sooner than later, and better in a game thats already over than one where he might get a seconf caution from a referee who chooses not to warn on the first occurance.

[bluedevils]

With all due respect, because I like everything you post here and I enjoy chatting with you. -- You warned him, and you were right to, on the first play a booking would have been too much (unless he screamed into the players ear). However, You should have booked him on the second occasion, IMO. Send the point home. Maybe the match didn't need that card, but the player certainly did. Maybe you cautioning him there prevents him from doing it in other matches. That players needs to modify his behavior. And now he left the game having been told not to do that by the ref, who then allowed it a second time, maybe he assumes that ref's are powerless to stop this sort of crap, but we're not. Better he learns this sooner than later, and better in a game thats already over than one where he might get a seconf caution from a referee who chooses not to warn on the first occurance.

I agree with you on this. Good post.

[ref47]

schackleton - it is not against the lotg to be anywhere on the pitch unless it is specifically stated in the lotg - like the distance on a fk or pk or ti. or interferring with an opponent while in an offside position. therefore, even though the intent was to disrupt the keeper, you can't treat this like verbal distraction.

joining ussf ref and bluedevils on this. player needed the card.

[bluedevils]

He did it again, not as strongly with about five minutes to go, but as his team was down 2-0, a card didn't seem necessary for match control.

As USSF REF eloquently said, the card was necessary from another perspective - corrective behavior for this player, for his own good and for the good of the game (the 'Beautiful Game,' not this U19 match in particular) as a whole.

Question for you: on this 2nd occurrence, did you verbally admonish him as you did the first time, or did you do nothing? Hopefully you at least scolded him again. Depending on what you said the first time, I think it might be possible for a verbal exchange to do the trick on the 2nd occurrence -- although a caution may have been more effective.

One bit of creative refereeing I have resorted to a few times is awarding an IFK -- playing in a dangerous manner is how I explain it to any player who asks what I am doing. Is this technically correct within the LOTG? Probably not. But I like it as an option. You are showing the player that what he is doing is not acceptable. Sure, he has earned a card but you may not want to spend one in certain matches, or you may not want to issue one because of confusion or potential pushback from the players. So you give the other team an IFK to show the player what he did will not be tolerated.

Typically I bundle the IFK with a brief word to the player that what he did is technically cautionable but I am giving him a break. I don't recall specific players I've used this approach on, so I really can't say based on subsequent games with those players if my approach worked.

Just a suggestion. Some folks may find it ridiculous, some may like it. Looking forward to hearing some feedback.

[Wreave]

schackleton - it is not against the lotg to be anywhere on the pitch unless it is specifically stated in the lotg - like the distance on a fk or pk or ti. or interferring with an opponent while in an offside position. therefore, even though the intent was to disrupt the keeper, you can't treat this like verbal distraction.

joining ussf ref and bluedevils on this. player needed the card.

Thanks all. Let me add some color.

I perceived his second "offense" as demonstrative of the fact that he was trying to do better. The second one was about 20% of the intensity/seriousness of the first - if that had been his first, I probably wouldn't even have said anything to him.

Yes, a card would have further cemented the message, maybe made it easier for the next guy. I really did think he caught himself, though. If the second offense had been like the first, I would have had no issue with hammering the point home.

I totally understand your point on giving the card. In a parallel universe, I might have given it and felt justified as well. In this case it just seemed unnecessary to add to the frustrations of an already-frustrated team. I had no issues for the balance of the match - might I still not have had any if I had carded this kid? Sure. Might the card have felt to the players like piling on? Maybe.

Important point: I actually gave no cards in this entire match. It was very cleanly played. If there had already been other cards for other issues, again, that might have changed things. But in a match with no cards, to give one with five minutes to go to the losing team for a very minor (albeit second) transgression, when neither the first nor second offense had any impact on play, didn't seem like the right call then, and it still doesn't.

Perhaps with this additional information, you'll understand why I chose not to go to the pocket. But if not, while I do appreciate your input (seriously), I'm pretty comfortable with this one.

[USSF REF]

Wreave,

Obviously you had to do what you felt was proper, and in this case I can see your thinking. I still think I would have cautioned him, but thats really an issue of you had to be there.

One thing though, the time of the match shouldn't affect if you decide to issue a caution or not. I know a lot of us try to avoid the book early on and right at the end, but in reality, from the kick-off to the final whistle, all plays and actions should be given the same consideration.

[Shackleton]

schackleton - it is not against the lotg to be anywhere on the pitch unless it is specifically stated in the lotg - like the distance on a fk or pk or ti. or interferring with an opponent while in an offside position. therefore, even though the intent was to disrupt the keeper, you can't treat this like verbal distraction.

I don't see the distinction. You say distraction by physical presence can never be USB because it is not against the LOTG to be anywhere on the field. But, likewise, it is not against the LOTG to verbally distract a player. The only reason verbal distraction is USB is because it is, well, unsporting. There may well be good reasons to distinguish verbal distraction (USB) and distraction by physical presence (not USB). But, you can't point to anything in the LOTG to make this distinction--the LOTG are silent as to both.

[macheath]

I had adult game where defender sat on the ball with no one within 20 yards of him. I thought about USB but made no call and both AR's agreed (grades 7 and6). Did not go over well with other team.

Months later we were at adnvanced clinic and we brought this up. Caution -USB. Knew it bothered me for a reason.

You mean physically sat? USB. If he had just stood there with it, not a problem. A goalkeeper who lies down or somesuch to effectively taunt the other team, same thing.

[mvgary]

You mean physically sat? USB. If he had just stood there with it, not a problem. A goalkeeper who lies down or somesuch to effectively taunt the other team, same thing.

Yes. He squatted down and his butt made contact with the ball for a second or two. Then he passed the ball to a team mate

[ref47]

physical presence is in the same realm of play allowed in the lotg as making a head feint or hip shake or step-over while playing the ball to distract and misdirect the opponent while you try to get around him. running at someone and screaming to distract him is not part of "normal" play as the game has developed over the years.

think about the pk. the kicker may feint, stutter-step, look in a different direction from where he intends to kick the ball, but he cannot point to misdirect, overrun the ball and return to kick it, or verbally distract the keeper. the lotg do not state everything that can and can't be done on the pitch. tradition plays a big role in what can and cannot be done. but, when you begin law 11 by stating that it is not an offense merely to be in an offside position, couple that with the traditions that have made their way into the q&as, atr, and other sources of guidance, i do not believe that it is possible to judge "mere presence" somewhere on the pitch as ub.