Liverpool/Cardiff
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Lunge? tick
Endangers safety? tick.
bear in mind we dont need, excessive force, to be met, its an and/or
undeniable its a lunge, plus, the other guys been injured. Its picture perfect sfp
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.
- AND endangers, excessive force? Not for me.
SERIOUS foul play, really?
Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
There's an "or" in there.
True, but if there isn't excessive force, not quite sure how safety is endangered? In any case, there's clearly doubt as all the differing opinions show. Not that I'm a red
True, but if there isn't excessive force, not quite sure how safety is endangered? In any case, there's clearly doubt as all the differing opinions show. Not that I'm a red
Id lean towards SFP based on speed, point of contact and completly flying past the ball and taking out opponent. But I think it's a nailed on 100% Dogso.
True, but if there isn't excessive force, not quite sure how safety is endangered? In any case, there's clearly doubt as all the differing opinions show. Not that I'm a red
So the GK used just the necessary use of force to take out an opponent with no attempt to play the ball... and with what could have caused serious injury.
Looking at how the Nottingham Forest GK today didn't take out his opponent and Iheanacho scored in the open goal, it makes a better case for DOGSO.
And it's not easy for the away team to get a penalty at Anfield, is it?
one
RefChat Addict
No SFP. It's a DOGSO for me but NOT a clear and obvious one due to distance.
The term 'covering' defender is for a second non-fouling defender when you have the keeper still in goal. That makes it three defenders in total counting the keeper. When you have the keeper fouling, you really need to have two other defenders in play to consider one of them as covering defender.
In the OP take the keeper out (as the fouling player) then you have an attacker who is likely to gain control, one defender left in play (one on one) and an empty net which nullifies any argument for covering defender.
The term 'covering' defender is for a second non-fouling defender when you have the keeper still in goal. That makes it three defenders in total counting the keeper. When you have the keeper fouling, you really need to have two other defenders in play to consider one of them as covering defender.
In the OP take the keeper out (as the fouling player) then you have an attacker who is likely to gain control, one defender left in play (one on one) and an empty net which nullifies any argument for covering defender.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Yes, there are three criteria. 1, a lunge, 2, endangering, and 3, excessive force
all three do not need to be met. There is no excessive force, there is the other two,
as the other poster says, you have misquoted, misread, or, simply misunderstand the text
its, and/or, not simply, and.
caught iby a lunge, on the back of the heels, at speed, certainly endangers, its outwith the expected iimpact areas to be fouled also.
as an example of how to can have SFP without excessive force, the infamous Nani high boot for Utd, v Real. Endangered safety, no excessive ( barely any force at all). The referee haa deemed it reckless. Because he is looking down the barrel of the gun at it and has no angle, meaning he fails to appreciate fully the gks actions.
Last edited:
It's DOGSO.
He has to roll the ball into an empty net, virtually unchallenged.
Leicester scored their goal from a similar situation with 2 defenders actually covering and the angle was much worse as its was towards the corner flag.
If the keeper was in the goal and the defender wiped him out there, it's Dogso, no difference if the keeper does it, it just enhances the case for DOGSO as no one is in goal.
He has to roll the ball into an empty net, virtually unchallenged.
Leicester scored their goal from a similar situation with 2 defenders actually covering and the angle was much worse as its was towards the corner flag.
If the keeper was in the goal and the defender wiped him out there, it's Dogso, no difference if the keeper does it, it just enhances the case for DOGSO as no one is in goal.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I don’t get the SFP from this clip. But it’s a very interesting decision to have to make.
The more we debate it, the redder it looks. It’s one that the authorities should explain.
The more we debate it, the redder it looks. It’s one that the authorities should explain.
What, admit that it was a clear and obvious error by VAR not to call it a clear and obvious error? Trying to explain it would make it worse.
The VAR decisions are worse than the onfieid ones. I'm not sure how they are defining "endangering".
And just a reminder that "excessive force" was originally not intended to bear this sort of analysis, simply because it has to be weighed against "just enough force to foul someone in a reckless way but without risking serious injury". It's a stupid use of language.
Last edited:
Ha, accusations of misquoting in the same post where the law is being misquoted!
The clause that includes the word "lunge" also includes "with excessive force or endangering the safety...". The "with" is key there - it means that even when a lunge does occur, it must still meet the threshold for force/endangerment. Lunge is not one of 3 separate requirements, it's simply a descriptor of the type of action that could easily (but not necessarily) lead to the actual SFP criteria being met.
We agree there is no excessive force (that's a reasonable amount of force at a reasonable height given the tackle he is attempting to make), so it simply comes down to the question of if there is an actual endangering of the opponents safety - and again, this tackle just stays below that threshold for me. It's one-footed, low, and only glances the opponent (albeit on the back of the heel which is going to hurt). Again it's undeniably close to a red and we're talking a subjective decision, but doesn't get there for me.
Nothing in that picture proves a red card was the correct outcome....
It was Man City so of course it does!
I think it proves that PGMOL and I have a different concept of what a "glancing blow" means.
It's as if PGMOL have engaged the No. 10 press office to explain that raking with the studs is a typical work event.