This is merely codifying what's been taught in Canada for the last several years. So, it's not new to everyone.
I think its an interesting collision of concepts. There is really no conceptual reason that a non-deliberate handling should be considered a defensive play. But it is also strange that only some handball offenses would be considered a deliberate play. This being IFAB, I really have no idea which path they meant to take with this change. But as far as being a necessary change, I thought this was really addressed when they made clear (last year?) that a hand ball offense could not be a save.
Another case of codifying what was already happening in practice. The MLS VAR audios I've heard have been pretty robotic/standard - the VAR doesn't do much pontificating to the referee. Serie A is another story! I've heard audios where the VAR is saying things like "Come look at this because I think it's a foul" ... "Come look at this because it touched his hand" ... "There's a handball in there come and see it" ... "he controls it with his hand". Ah ... cultural differences!
Not so. They put it as a “clarification” before the law changes. Clarification If at a goal kick or free kick the goalkeeper ‘flicks’ the ball up and a team-mate heads/chests the ball back for the goalkeeper to catch, the kick is retaken; there is no disciplinary sanction (unless this occurs persistently) Not clear if that is added to the text of the Laws or is freestanding. (Without adding it to the Laws, it is n’t a clarification of anything in the Laws, as nothing in the Laws gives any basis for a retake.)
So I want to ask this game situation (which did happen to me) to see if I'm thinking through things correctly. Red vs White. Red gets the ball near the sideline in the defensive third, probably 10 yards in front of the penalty area line. Red fullback evades White forward and starts down the sideline. White forward grabs a big handful of shirt as Red fullback plays a pass to Red midfielder and away we go on the counter-attack. I call advantage and call out that White forward is getting a caution as I'm sprinting down the field (this was the team side, so both coaches knew the caution was coming). At the next stoppage, I find White forward and caution him. The foul did not stop a promising attack, but it was a blatant hold. I would still imagine I could caution for USB based on the blatant nature of the shirt pull, right? The new law seems to indicate that if it's a careless foul that we don't caution if we call advantage or allow a quick free kick.
Be careful with language. It doesn't refer to careless--which is good, as if it was based on careless, the language wouldn't apply to holding at all as it is not a C/R/EF offense (nor handling, for that matter). The IFAB language is specific: " if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not cautioned. " So the answer to your question is based on what you are cautioning for. If it is not for SPA, it would not be forgiven. But do think about what you are cautioning for here. This play does not fit into any of the examples of USB--so your either calling it showing lack of respect for the game (or, cue the debate), just USB, as the list is not intended as all inclusive. For me, unless this is a really bad holding foul (as in worried, in the context of a particular game, that it could start a fight), I'm not cautioning here--we have a holding foul that is less than a SPA holding foul that would not get a caution. (And if it's that bad, I'm not going to play advantage where there is not a promising attack.) Just call advantage and, if necessary/appropriate, have a word with the miscreant at your next opportunity.
If a goalkeeper takes a goal kick poorly, for example, and it doesn't go its intended target and is instead heading toward an opponent... and that goalkeeper then takes an illegal second touch (even with his hand) to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, he can/should be cautioned or sent off, as appropriate. The really interesting question, for me, is when it would actually be a send off. If the goalkeeper used any part of his body other than his hand in the penalty area, it's a caution, because he'd be "challenging for the ball." If he uses his hand, though...? A goalkeeper can otherwise legally challenge with his hand, so that seems like a really bad justification to get a red card. The only thing I can think of is if the goalkeeper's second touch was outside the penalty area.
The exemption from handling in the PA used to mean that if a GK stopped a promising attack or OSGO via a second touch of a FK, the GK could be cautioned if he used his foot but not if he used his hands. So this erases that distinction. Clunky, but that's all it means.
[QUOTE="MassachusettsRef, post: 38620787, member: 14366] The really interesting question, for me, is when it would actually be a send off. If the goalkeeper used any part of his body other than his hand in the penalty area, it's a caution, because he'd be "challenging for the ball." If he uses his hand, though...? A goalkeeper can otherwise legally challenge with his hand, so that seems like a really bad justification to get a red card. The only thing I can think of is if the goalkeeper's second touch was outside the penalty area.[/QUOTE] It couldn't be that IFAB just didn't think that far ahead, could it?
thank you guys, maybe I am approaching this too simply, but with some of the law changes, was there really an outcry to make them. before covid, we just done making sure the officials at our clinics were comfortable with 19/20 law changes!!!
While I think some, as is usually the case, are unnecessary (the GK is a good example--it may be intellectually appealing to fix that--but has it ever happened?--many IFAB changes seem like that), I think this is a less disruptive set of changes than we have seen in many of our recent years. And while I haven't fully digested, I think there is more good than bad in this set.
I feel like I'm talking to myself, but one more oddity: In Law 14, they made clear what has been the de facto law about GK violations on a miss rather than save, which as MR noted puts us on the hook for what it means to clearly affect the shooter. OK. But they did not address encroachment, which has, if anything, been even more loosely addressed--as written, encroachment by other players should be enforced strictly and only for GK infractions do we look to see real world impact. Though perhaps this one is inspired by VAR and not wanting a technical basis for VAR to not pick up minor infractions when the kicker misses?
I appreciate your analysis on this - it was helpful and you didn't need to go into that much detail to assist. The one thing I forgot to mention (and this was a 2004 game - funny how you remember moments in games, but that was my second year in officiating and my first state playoff series center - I honestly think that game and that sequence helped get me on people's initial radar to work my first state tournament the following year) was that the hold practically brought the Red player to the ground. The White forward was turned around, and this team had a reputation of being physical at best and bordering on dirty at worst. So even today, I would probably still caution that particular play. If it was your run of the mill shirt pull trying to stop an attack, I wouldn't caution it today. Red team's coach was a very well-respected state referee, and I remember him coming up to me after the game telling me that entire sequence was great to watch from an officiating perspective. Talk about a confidence booster for a young official.
It's just the continuation of the trend to limit cautions for SPA at the pro level. Now we're extending it to blatant holds that slow down but don't stop a promising attack.
I'm a bit confused by all this and I think it stems from @RefIADad initially quoting the wrong passage in post #30--but maybe not! It seems like the original question was about the provision where an SPA yellow gets downgraded to nothing if we allow the quick restart. That new change is consistent with the updated language last year about a DOGSO red being downgraded to a yellow if you allow a quick restart. The theory is that if the quick restart is truly advantageous, then an obvious goal-scoring opportunity wasn't truly denied (and, by extension, neither was an SPA if a quick restart is allowed in such a case). It may be consistent with the trend @code1390 is citing, but it's also logical. These are supposed to be very rare circumstances. It's going to be very rare that you whistle for the type of foul that deserves a red or yellow purely for the type of attacking- or goal-scoring opportunity it has stopped, and then immediately realize that a restart is as or more advantageous to the attacking team than the situation was prior to the foul. But, when it happens, you now have clear instruction that you downgrade the color of the card if those circumstances occur. The question @RefIADad asked is actually a slightly different one, though related. In his situation, he acknowledged a foul, played advantage, and then play stopped for a different reason. In a situation like that, the bar for SPA should already be very high (if you can play advantage, did it really stop a promising attack?). But if the nature of the blatant holding is so bad that it needs to be cautioned or, perhaps, it was the type of off-the-ball hold that took a player out of an attacking opportunity (so not exactly stopping a promising attack, but tactically making it not as good), you're probably within your rights to caution because the game will expect it. If you point out during dynamic play that the fouling player is getting a caution at the next stoppage, then he's getting a caution at the next stoppage (or the stoppage after that, if the next stoppage is one of those rare circumstances we're talking about in my two paragraphs above). Nothing has changed here. But to the extent the language and this discussion makes people think about how cautions for SPA relate to advantage calls, that's a good thing.
As I tend to do sometimes, I think I added more to the confusion than to the clarification. Sorry about that. Here's the real crux of my question. I get the spirit of the law change related to not caution for a "normal" foul that doesn't stop a promising attack (i.e. advantage or quick free kick). My question is more about what we should do with the obvious tactical fouls that still don't stop that attack. The obvious and blatant shirt pull I mentioned in my case is probably Exhibit A of a foul like that. It was an intentional foul, it was obviously tactical in nature, but the offense was able to still generate a positive opportunity out of the advantage. I just don't like the idea of not cautioning those types of fouls if a caution is truly meant to change behavior. I get if the tactical foul is pretty minor. But if the defender grabs enough of the back of the attacker's jersey to nearly pull him down and the entire crowd can see it even though it happened across the field, I still want to caution that even if it didn't stop the promising attack. Hope that makes more sense.
If at a goal kick or free kick the goalkeeper ‘flicks’ the ball up and a team-mate heads/chests the ball back for the goalkeeper to catch, the kick is retaken; there is no disciplinary sanction (unless this occurs persistently).
SPA is short-hand invented by the referee community. The Laws actually say "interferes with or stops a promising attack..." Perhaps the acronym should be IWSPA. "Interferes with" is the phrase you are looking for. So, for example, a blatant shirt hold off-the-ball that turns a 4 v 2 into a 3 v 2 is still a yellow card.
In my earlier days of refereeing I was taught never to say "next time you do that you're getting a yellow". Sounds good in theory, but I bet we have all done that at one point or another. Now we have a clear instruction to do just that with a goalkeeper infraction during a PK. Perhaps we need a different color card. Maybe a white card? (Don't take that suggestion seriously) I'm not much of a believer in slippery slopes, but I wonder if this "logic" is going to be extended as the years go on? That is: issue a caution that a player will next get a caution.
Recent years as I have read through the changes, I can't help but think that I'm glad I retired from reffing after I broke my ankle. Just reading this makes my head hurt. I'm afraid I'd never be able to keep everything straight out on the field.
Unless the act is cautionable for something besides SPA then it is not cautioned. If it were reckless, for example, it would be cautioned. But I think IFAB is being really clear on this: tactical fouls are not cautioned if the referee plays advantage or allows a quick restart for a scoring opportunity. (You obviously don't agree with the change. OK, we all have changes we don't like [I have a long list myself. . .]. But unless you can find a different reason for the caution, once you play advantage, the caution is gone. And perhaps it means that we should be really sure there is a true advantage before playing advantage when a SPA foul occurs.)
My apologies. I totally missed this in my first reading. I thought we were talking about the quick restarts, which explains my last few posts. Yikes. This does seem problematic. These cautions—SPA with advantage—are one of the few type of cautions they everyone expects and understands. I don’t see the benefit in this change. Imagine a player, already on a yellow, committing a blatant hold but being saved solely because the referee tried to play advantage. It’s a nightmare waiting to happen. I genuinely don’t think this will be enforced as written. It’s too stupid if taken literally. Remember that time when we were going to caution players for not leaving at the nearest boundary line when substituted? Yeah, me neither. Kind of feel like this will fall into that bucket. Referees are still going to caution OBVIOUS SPA because everyone expects it.
I think you're right. The blatant shirt hold in the midfield where the ref plays advantage and then cautions at the next stoppage is one of the few times where the ref almost always gets praised by commentators. Even the player than committed the hold expects to get the caution.