A&H

Pitch invader shoulder charged by player

The Referee Store
I think the players been clever here, There is not enough for violent conduct here for me, Orange, which leaves us to our own individual devices.

Leaving aside the risk to the players own safety ( has the guy got a knife etc), she has done what we morally? want someone to do.

By the lotg we do need to sanction, am going yellow player on player here and also going yellow player on fan.
 
i'm amazed, bearing in mind i wanted nothing to do with the fan on player push / reaction and want this to be red

ultimately it's an unprovoked charge into an unsuspecting fan. sure they shouldnt be there and kerr is getting wound up but i dont see that as any excuse to react like that

if that's in my game on Saturday, player on player or player on fan, i'll be redding
 
es1 said:
i'm amazed, bearing in mind i wanted nothing to do with the fan on player push / reaction and want this to be red

ultimately it's an unprovoked charge into an unsuspecting fan. sure they shouldnt be there and kerr is getting wound up but i dont see that as any excuse to react like that

if that's in my game on Saturday, player on player or player on fan, i'll be redding
Click to expand...

Suppose its up to our own interpretation here over what is an act of violence, over, an act of aggression.

Thats not violence/brutality for me.

It might well be tho for someone else. If player walked up to another and shoved him like that, am yellow. I just dont see the brutality
 
Anubis said:
Suppose its up to our own interpretation here over what is an act of violence, over, an act of aggression.

Thats not violence/brutality for me.

It might well be tho for someone else. If player walked up to another and shoved him like that, am yellow. I just dont see the brutality
Click to expand...

two players are stood at a break in play, there's no discussion between them. suddenly one turns and runs into the other shoulder charging them to the floor.

i get what you mean, the act in itself isnt especially violent or brutal but it's forceful and totally unnecessary
 
es1 said:
two players are stood at a break in play, there's no discussion between them. suddenly one turns and runs into the other shoulder charging them to the floor.

i get what you mean, the act in itself isnt especially violent or brutal but it's forceful and totally unnecessary
Click to expand...

Still aggression for me and not brutality.

I can see force, I dont see excessive force.

If you are deeming it forceful, that in itself is not vc, it need be, excessive
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
This is something I’ve seen a few times in football, especially at grassroots. Most common case of it happening is when a defender is shielding the ball to go out for a throw in and a frustrated attacker just charges him. No play for the ball, just an attempt to floor the opponent.

Its forceful, but not excessive. It’s aggressive, not violent or brutal. Player on player that gets a yellow most of the time, sometimes it’s a red but it would take more circumstances to be a red. The case in the original situation isn’t a red, it’s a yellow for me. If its a yellow for player on player it’s the same for player on fan.

Not criticising any ref that goes red here, I can see that, although I’ve never seen a red given for it.
 
Joshref said:
This is something I’ve seen a few times in football, especially at grassroots. Most common case of it happening is when a defender is shielding the ball to go out for a throw in and a frustrated attacker just charges him. No play for the ball, just an attempt to floor the opponent.

Its forceful, but not excessive. It’s aggressive, not violent or brutal. Player on player that gets a yellow most of the time, sometimes it’s a red but it would take more circumstances to be a red. The case in the original situation isn’t a red, it’s a yellow for me. If its a yellow for player on player it’s the same for player on fan.

Not criticising any ref that goes red here, I can see that, although I’ve never seen a red given for it.
Click to expand...
Re your last para check out Havant & Waterlooville v Dorchester, 2011.
 
I'll say the same thing I said before. Self-defense here, not unreasonable force at all, no misconduct for me. It's not any sort of card for me. Now if she had jumped the guy and started to rain punches on him, then we have a different situation. But as soon as the bozo approaches a player, self-defense is reasonable.

At some point, common sense has to take over as opposed to an overly strict interpretation of the Laws.

For those of you ready to dish out a red for this, Google "Monica Seles stabbing" and let me know if this is what you want to see on a football pitch.
 
RefIADad said:
I'll say the same thing I said before. Self-defense here, not unreasonable force at all, no misconduct for me. It's not any sort of card for me. Now if she had jumped the guy and started to rain punches on him, then we have a different situation. But as soon as the bozo approaches a player, self-defense is reasonable.

At some point, common sense has to take over as opposed to an overly strict interpretation of the Laws.

For those of you ready to dish out a red for this, Google "Monica Seles stabbing" and let me know if this is what you want to see on a football pitch.
Click to expand...

sorry I dont mean to be obtuse but, no misconduct?


it simply IS the very definition of misconduct


and as for comparing to Seles, thats exactly why players are to stay away and not confront invaders...


Am seriiously stunned a match official cannot see misconduct here, the self defence principle has no place on the football field despite some of us wishing it did.

if you talking self defense, the player was at no point asked or required to defend herself, she took it upon herself to confront the invader....only one of them was aggressive and made contact with the other ( despite the obvious fact the invader should not be there)
 
Last edited:
Anubis said:
sorry I dont mean to be obtuse but, no misconduct?


it simply IS the very definition of misconduct


and as for comparing to Seles, thats exactly why players are to stay away and not confront invaders...


Am seriiously stunned a match official cannot see misconduct here, the self defence principle has no place on the football field despite some of us wishing it did.

if you talking self defense, the player was at no point asked or required to defend herself, she took it upon herself to confront the invader....only one of them was aggressive and made contact with the other ( despite the obvious fact the invader should not be there)
Click to expand...

i'm also stunned he sees self defence when the player is the one who initiated the contact / aggression

i get that you have to defend yourself if attacked but that's not what happens here
 
es1 said:
i'm also stunned he sees self defence when the player is the one who initiated the contact / aggression

i get that you have to defend yourself if attacked but that's not what happens here
Click to expand...

The guy was approaching the player. She neutralized the threat.

It's almost the textbook definition of self-defense.

Anubis had the same "let the fans have free rein at the players" in a similar discussion last week. I don't understand why he's willing to allow player safety to be endangered by fans, but he's entitled to that opinion.
 
RefIADad said:
The guy was approaching the player. She neutralized the threat.

It's almost the textbook definition of self-defense.

Anubis had the same "let the fans have free rein at the players" in a similar discussion last week. I don't understand why he's willing to allow player safety to be endangered by fans, but he's entitled to that opinion.
Click to expand...
There may very well be a UK/US divide on when self defence/reasonable force is allowable.
This just isn't self defence. There is no threat of violence, this is just an idiot running around a pitch.

In other words there is no threat to be "neutralised".
 
RefIADad said:
The guy was approaching the player. She neutralized the threat.

It's almost the textbook definition of self-defense.
Click to expand...

But that's not what happened. The knucklehead wasn't approaching her, he was going past her several yards away until she ran over and decked him. That's not self-defense--all she had to do was walk the other way rather than escalate the encounter.

I'm by no means defending the miscreant that comes on the field, but initiating physical contact has to be a no-no.

I think a red is probably a better technical result here, but the more I think about it, the more I like the yellow, which I imagine the R twisted into generic USB. It doesn't let the miscreant participate in a player being sent off, but it still makes clear that the player's response to it was not acceptable.
 
RefIADad said:
The guy was approaching the player. She neutralized the threat.

It's almost the textbook definition of self-defense.

Anubis had the same "let the fans have free rein at the players" in a similar discussion last week. I don't understand why he's willing to allow player safety to be endangered by fans, but he's entitled to that opinion.
Click to expand...
I had to watch it back again just make sure I wasn't seeing things

Cannot come close to agreeing with your interpretation.

The fan is actually running off the pitch when the player engages him
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Re your last para check out Havant & Waterlooville v Dorchester, 2011.
Click to expand...
I actually meant not seen red for a shoulder charge, although that clip was a great video. As stupid as it feels to give a red for that (in terms of everyone wants to see the streaker removed), in terms of the law it has to be a red, it’s as clear violent conduct as you could see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top