A&H

Oscar & Out

The Referee Store
OK, he kicks the ball at an opponent in an excessively forceful manner so I have no problem with a red card but he is then pushed over and takes absolutely no part in the ensuing mêlée. I'm not sure that's worth an 8-game ban.
 
How can you say this is kicked in an excessively forceful manner? It's kicked hard, yes. Are you going to red card a penalty taker after he rockets the ball at the keeper? Are you going to red card a player who has a go at a wonder strike from 20 yards but hits the player in the process? Are you going to red card a free kick taker who rockets a ball into the wall?

He hits it hard, yes. But how he can get an 8 game ban for this is absolutely beyond me! It's a more severe ban than the other red card offenders!!!
 
He kicks the ball hard at the opponent's shin to get it to go the way he wants to and the only reason the opponent fell over was that he ran into his own player. Before it kicks off he points at where the ball went, presumably to say "that's what I was doing - I wanted it to go there!" At no point did the Referee appear to stop play to penalise Oscar. Does anyone know what the restart was?

I don't really see what he did wrong, because I don't see how you can commit VC by kicking the ball while it's in play. Players should expect the ball to be kicked hard on occasion, and it may be in their direction. If he had thrown the ball at the opponent while in play or kicked it at him when play was stopped then I could understand, because the opponent would not have expected it, but it reminds me of the playground where someone over-reacts over something stupid and a mass bundle results. I'm not sure the title "Oscar cause (sic) big fight" is really accurate. His role was minor and I think it was waiting to happen anyway looking at how quickly everyone ran in. If you do consider this VC (which I think is a stretch to say the least) then the ban is excessive.

It appears that he has been punished because the opposition didn't like him being cute by rebounding the ball off their player, which is a dangerous precedent. If a team object to Ronaldo doing the usual 15 step overs to make their players look stupid and kick off then is he going to get a similar ban?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
I see at least 3 cautions for the team in blue in the first 3 seconds of the mass con.
They caused this brawl not Oscar
I would struggle to find a caution let alone an * match ban for Oscar.
For me to call violent conduct for kicking a ball at a player when the ball is in play it'd have to be so much more obvious than this.
Remember, players kick balls at opponents to win throw ins/corners in every single match!
 
I think we all agree that 8 matches for this is entirely ridiculous. However there is an established precedent for the idea that if the referee believes a player is using the ball in an attempt to injure an opponent by using excessive force, a red card can be justified.

Does he need to kick the ball as hard as he does the first time? I don't think so, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Does he need to kick the ball as hard as he does, in the direction of his own goal the second time? Absolutely not IMO, the only possible reason to do so is to try and hurt the opponent he kicks the ball at. The force with which he does so and the clear intent to injure his opponent makes it worth of VC in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Suarez got 8 game ban for the racism towards Patrice Evra.... The crime has got to fit the ban and there must be some consistency..Just saying!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
markref said:
I don't really see what he did wrong, because I don't see how you can commit VC by kicking the ball while it's in play. Players should expect the ball to be kicked hard on occasion, and it may be in their direction.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. The law says, "If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, intentionally kicks the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue." This for me, embodies the principle that if a player deliberately kicks the ball at an opponent even during play, it is an offence and the use of the terms normally used for offences leading to a free kick, caution or sending off imply that those sanctions can be applied, as applicable.
 
Peter, you've contradicted yourself; "If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, intentionally kicks the ball..." that clearly states that it is a dead ball situation and not open play. This is more so aimed at a free kick situation where a defending player doesn't retreat quickly enough, resulting in the attacker smashing the ball at him.
 
DB said:
Peter, you've contradicted yourself; "If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, intentionally kicks the ball..." that clearly states that it is a dead ball situation and not open play. This is more so aimed at a free kick situation where a defending player doesn't retreat quickly enough, resulting in the attacker smashing the ball at him.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree - what I am saying is that even though the law only specifically mentions this in relation to free kicks, it illustrates the principle that to deliberately kick the ball at an opponent with excessive force is contrary to the laws of the game. I can recall several incidents where players have been sent off for deliberately kicking the ball at an opponent who was unable to get out of the way. Admittedly, this was usually when the opponent was lying on the ground but again, if what you are saying were true, the referees in those incidents were wrong to dismiss the offenders, because the offence did not take place at a dead ball situation.

Also, the example you give earlier of a player taking a penalty is not a valid comparison. At a penalty (or in other examples of open play) where a player strikes the ball with force intending it to go either into the goal or as a long ball intended for a colleague or whatever other legitimate reason for kicking the ball and an opponent just happens to end up in the flight path of the ball, that is completely different to the situation where a player deliberately kicks the ball as hard as they can, straight at an opponent from close range, with no chance for the opponent to get out of the way, with no other purpose than to forcefully strike the opponent with the ball and with a concomitant risk of causing injury.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if, at a penalty, I thought that a player was not trying to score a goal, but instead was deliberately trying to strike the goalkeeper with the ball using excessive force and in a way that was liable to injure the opponent, I would very possibly consider that as an offence. Now, it wouldn't happen, because the player would know (as we all do) that keepers invariably dive just before the ball is struck and that even if they didn't, with the distance involved, the keeper would have the chance to defend himself or move away (though more likely he would just block the ball) but for me the principle would still apply even though this would be a bad example of it.
 
Last edited:
Well done Peter, you've won this weeks star prize....... surely you don't believe all that mumbo jumbo above......??:rolleyes:

Ive tried putting a case for some lost cause arguments over the years but you've just excelled my efforts.....
 
1200.jpg
 
Peter Grove said:
I would have to disagree - what I am saying is that even though the law only specifically mentions this in relation to free kicks, it illustrates the principle that to deliberately kick the ball at an opponent with excessive force is contrary to the laws of the game. I can recall several incidents where players have been sent off for deliberately kicking the ball at an opponent who was unable to get out of the way. Admittedly, this was usually when the opponent was lying on the ground but again, if what you are saying were true, the referees in those incidents were wrong to dismiss the offenders, because the offence did not take place at a dead ball situation.
Click to expand...
@Peter Grove , I almost invariably agree with your perspective. And the above makes total sense to me. The rest of the post was a bit convoluted though ;)
 
First kick can be argued was intended as part of play, second kick is clearly intended to hurt an opponent.

To anyone who says it is okay because it was part of general play I ask you this, would it be okay if it was deliberately kicked at the referee? Why should it be any different in deciding if its VC when the only intent is to hurt another person?
 
GraemeS said:
I think we all agree that 8 matches for this is entirely ridiculous. However there is an established precedent for the idea that if the referee believes a player is using the ball in an attempt to injure an opponent by using excessive force, a red card can be justified.

Does he need to kick the ball as hard as he does the first time? I don't think so, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Does he need to kick the ball as hard as he does, in the direction of his own goal the second time? Absolutely not IMO, the only possible reason to do so is to try and hurt the opponent he kicks the ball at. The force with which he does so and the clear intent to injure his opponent makes it worth of VC in my book.
Click to expand...


in both cases it could be argued that he was trying to clear the ball
not work of VC in my opinion
 
So the next time a defender has to thump it for a throw in from close quarters and it hits a supporter in the crowd or the Lino it's an 8 game ban? Complete over reaction on all parts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DB
Sheffields Finest said:
So the next time a defender has to thump it for a throw in from close quarters and it hits a supporter in the crowd or the Lino it's an 8 game ban? Complete over reaction on all parts.
Click to expand...
You're deliberately misrepresenting my argument here, because I've made it very clear that I don't think 8 games is appropriate. What I do think is appropriate is the red card.

It's not an attempted clearance at all in this case! He's hit the ball as hard as he can, directly at an opponent with the clear intent of trying to hurt them. If that doesn't count as worthy of a red card for you, then I'm genuinely a little bit concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top