A&H

Red card Wrexham FC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to the incident in the Dover game. I read the posts before seeing the video and was expecting something other than what I saw.

I really struggle to justify a red here. It seems to me it’s an attempt to trip to delay the release of the ball by the goal keeper. Take a yellow for the team as the vernacular goes while allowing the defence to reorganise.
Keeper has done a Neymar and got the Wrexham attacker sent off.

The attacker’s action is stupid but I really can’t reconcile myself to anything more than a caution.
 
The Referee Store
Tealeaf said:
Back to the incident in the Dover game. I read the posts before seeing the video and was expecting something other than what I saw.

I really struggle to justify a red here. It seems to me it’s an attempt to trip to delay the release of the ball by the goal keeper. Take a yellow for the team as the vernacular goes while allowing the defence to reorganise.
Keeper has done a Neymar and got the Wrexham attacker sent off.

The attacker’s action is stupid but I really can’t reconcile myself to anything more than a caution.
Click to expand...
Hallelujah 👏👏👏👏
 
JH said:
An action (pushing someone off the ball) is not a challenge for the ball, and it uses, or attempts to use excessive force (you can't challenge for the ball if it is not there so any force is excessive)...

Yet I'm sure you'd give a caution.

See how it works?
Click to expand...
Depends on the force of the push, are we talking two players squaring up to each other, or are we talking a player running up and shoving an opponent forcefully?

The former is more likely to be AA, the latter, to me, is more likely to be VC.

Of course it depends on the incident
 
I look at these just the once, and think what I would have given. When we're out there, we don't see replays, so why should we have more than one view on here.

Anyway. My initial reaction is Yellow for a stupid, petulant, trip...and a dressing down. And yellow for the keeper for being a d1ck. I would have waited until I got home, before deciding what actual Code to put them through as.

To be fair to the ref in this game. he had a great view of how much of a kick it was, and I can totally understand why he gave red.
 
Last edited:
Sheffields Finest said:
So why didn’t the VAR send off the Bournemouth player then? It’s not as strict as you like to phrase!
Click to expand...

You've already had posts deleted about that as it isn't at all relevant to this thread, if you want to discuss that then start a new topic.

But to answer, the image you posted was of a challenge for the ball so that can only be SFP, not VC. Whereas in this topic there was no challenge for the ball, unless the attacker has really bad eye sight, so the debate here is about VC, not SFP. You have compared apples with oranges.
 
JH said:
'Any action towards another player off the ball is excessive force' is not a sustainable

Exactly! So not every action off the ball is excessive force then?
Click to expand...
Of course not.

But in this case deliberately kicking the goalkeeper when there is no possibility of legally playing the ball was excessive.

The kick was intended to hurt the goalkeeper, nothing more, nothing less.
 
RustyRef said:
You've already had posts deleted about that as it isn't at all relevant to this thread, if you want to discuss that then start a new topic.

But to answer, the image you posted was of a challenge for the ball so that can only be SFP, not VC. Whereas in this topic there was no challenge for the ball, unless the attacker has really bad eye sight, so the debate here is about VC, not SFP. You have compared apples with oranges.
Click to expand...
That’s fine and dandy sir and of course your opinion but the ball wasn’t in the shot either so, the challenge was VC too, so it was totally relevant to the thread and point I was making.
 
zarathustra said:
Of course not.

But in this case deliberately kicking the goalkeeper when there is no possibility of legally playing the ball was excessive.

The kick was intended to hurt the goalkeeper, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
I respect that you think this was a red card, it was the blanket terminology I don't agree with.

I certainly think it could have been tactical to prevent the goalkeeper releasing, I still don't see anything resembling violent conduct. Excessive force is a pretty arbitrary term, even when defined by the LOTG.

However, I know that a red card here was the expected decision, even if I can't justify it myself.

Agree to disagree:)
 
zarathustra said:
The kick was intended to hurt the goalkeeper, nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
Dear me...
We both would have shown the kicker a red card, but nobody was doing any hurty and nobody experienced any hurty
Your justification for a dismissal is making me lean towards yellow
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JH
Sheffields Finest said:
That’s fine and dandy sir and of course your opinion but the ball wasn’t in the shot either so, the challenge was VC too, so it was totally relevant to the thread and point I was making.
Click to expand...

There must have been a UFO at the Vitality then as I can definitely see a ball in the image you posted … :)
 
RustyRef said:
There must have been a UFO at the Vitality then as I can definitely see a ball in the image you posted … :)
Click to expand...
Yes, point being, it was 3-4 yards away whilst the player appeared to stamp on the ankle of the player, hardly a challenge for the ball when, like the OP it’s not anywhere near the ball! VAR waved it on but the intent was far more excessive
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Yes, point being, it was 3-4 yards away whilst the player appeared to stamp on the ankle of the player, hardly a challenge for the ball when, like the OP it’s not anywhere near the ball! VAR waved it on but the intent was far more excessive
Click to expand...

Yes, and it took a fraction of a second for the ball to travel that far, as opposed to the OP where the keeper has had the ball in his hands for ages. You just aren't comparing anything close to like for like.

Also, as someone else said, for those that aren't sending off what do you do if the keeper retaliates and kicks or punches the attacker? Would you really send off the keeper and then only caution the attacker who has caused the whole thing? That wouldn't be a credible decision and would leave you looking a little silly in my opinion.
 
I'd like to see the Bournemouth incident as they don't show these things in the highlights. There's debate regarding deleted posts that the rest of us can't assess as comparable or not
 
Big Cat said:
Dear me...
We both would have shown the kicker a red card, but nobody was doing any hurty and nobody experienced any hurty
Your justification for a dismissal is making me lean towards yellow
Click to expand...
Oh do behave yourself.

Of course he wanted to hurt the goalkeeper, if he didn't then why bother kicking him?

Whether the kick actually hurt the goal keeper is another matter entirely.
 
I wonder if the keeper had stayed up (instead of going to ground with the obvious agony he was in from the brutal kick he received) would the ref have showed a red card? My opinion is no. Based on that the keeper is guilty of an offence. When will the refs in this country start cautioning for players faking injury only for said player to "recover" once a red card is shown?

I think a yellow for the attacker would have been the result if the keeper had stayed up but the ref reacted, based on the keeper, not to what he had actually seen.
 
JH said:
You wouldn't send him off of the keeper played on and didn't go down. Don't pretend you would.
Click to expand...

I sent a player off at the end of last season for a similar force kick out at another player as depicted in the original clip, only difference was that the player he kicked was walking off the FOP after himself being sent off for VC. The victim of this kick didn't react to it, but I still sent the perpetrator off. So please don't think to presume that I wouldn't do so!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top