The Ref Stop

Sanction and restart for this?

Kes said:
Jumping at an opponent I don't think is an option here Chas.

For me, that element of Law 12 is reserved for "headed" challenges when the ball is in the air. "Jumping" in this manner ie. letting gravity take over is a consideration for either dangerous, reckless or even SFP.

The correct sanction for the kicking away of the ball here is a dissent caution (Sin Bin) since it's clear that's what it is by the way in which the player throws his arms up in the air (presumably in faux disgust at hearing the whistle blown against him) as he does it.
Click to expand...

I was going to mention this: I would still caution the player. In this case, it would be for dissent having kicked the ball away. In Canada, we don't use sin bins so it would just be a caution.
 
The Ref Stop
Big Cat said:
You all need to have a look at yourselves. It's Serious Foul Play
Completely ridiculous lunge from whatever direction and I'm not finding out what the consequences are in my game of getting cute with the Laws
Click to expand...
Don't agree. Just cos it looks ridiculously offensive doesn't make it so. As mad as it looks, there was no contact or consequence for the opponent so SFP can't be correct in this instance. Sure, the potential SFP aspect of it was averted by the opponent having the sense to apply the brakes before he got too near for fear of injury but that is the actual definition for Dangerous Play in the good book ...
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
If issuing a caution for the first offence, play cannot restart until that is done, so there is no delay to a restart.
Click to expand...
Surely it’s YC for dissent by …action.

Context is everything. If this was an isolated incident in an easy match at grassroots, I’m looking to give one YC, either USB for the idiot ”challenge” or dissent by action for ”protesting” and kicking the ball away.

In a serious match, or heated match, I’m happy to find two yellows here. If observing someone, I would expect ABN.
 
Kes said:
Don't agree. Just cos it looks ridiculously offensive doesn't make it so. As mad as it looks, there was no contact or consequence for the opponent so SFP can't be correct in this instance. Sure, the potential SFP aspect of it was averted by the opponent having the sense to apply the brakes before he got too near for fear of injury but that is the actual definition for Dangerous Play in the good book ...
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as 'dangerous play' in the good book!
The lesser spotted PIADM almost doesn't exist, aside from lying on the ball or high foot. Nowhere does it say that CRUEF requires contact. Contact is merely the usual consequence. Anyway, respect your opinion and all that, but this 'quarrel' just shouldn't exist.... and it wouldn't if the book was not encrypted. No doubt football expects contact where CRUEF is concerned, I certainly do. But there are stupidly, absurd exceptions like the one in the OP. Personally, it's so stupid, I think there's a good chance it was staged for TikTok, so we're debating something so extremely daft, it didn't even happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
I think you have to sanction the original challenge with a yellow card.
If you want to call it reckless with no contact DFK, fine.
PIADM IDFK YC for USB, also fine with me.
And, I think in a serious game you need to sanction the kicking the ball away for protesting, dissent by action.
YC USB, YC dissent, RC fro 2x YC.

I think you might get away with one YC. But if you don't find a card here I think you risk match control (actually I think you have lost it!).
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
If issuing a caution for the first offence, play cannot restart until that is done, so there is no delay to a restart.
Click to expand...
Assuming the referee hadn't started the cautioning procedure, given the proximity to goal the attacking team could have potentially had a goal-scoring opportunity with a quick free kick, so I'd say cautioning for delaying the restart is still an option here, even if intending on cautioning for the initial offence. (A stretch I'll admit, but still technically possible!)

As for the challenge itself... on first viewing I'd have said caution and DFK, due to the distance between the players. Watching again, I think the only reason that the defender doesn't come close to making contact is that the attacker sees him jumping in and pulls out. On that basis, I don't think a red card would be incorrect.
 
ARF said:
Assuming the referee hadn't started the cautioning procedure, given the proximity to goal the attacking team could have potentially had a goal-scoring opportunity with a quick free kick, so I'd say cautioning for delaying the restart is still an option here, even if intending on cautioning for the initial offence. (A stretch I'll admit, but still technically possible!)

As for the challenge itself... on first viewing I'd have said caution and DFK, due to the distance between the players. Watching again, I think the only reason that the defender doesn't come close to making contact is that the attacker sees him jumping in and pulls out. On that basis, I don't think a red card would be incorrect.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, one of the (most discussed) clips in the English basic referee course is one where a player jumps out of the way of an out of control lunge by an opponent. There is no contact but the point of the clip is to stress to new referees that it is still a red card offence.
The clip in the OP is not the same (hey, no two challenges are the same are they? ;)) ... however the logic is pretty similar, in that there could / would have been a serious injury if the non offending player hadn't taken evasive action. As an observer, I'd support either two yellows or a straight red here, depending on match context. Most important thing is that the offender doesn't stay on the FOP!
 
GraemeS said:
Majority against against. 2 for. Case closed!
Click to expand...
Without being flippant or mischievous, yes I can see the argument for PIADM. The target takes evasive action, which is at the heart of PIADM
But consider a lunge with excessive force. This can't be denied. The distraction is the absence of contact, but consider violent conduct 'attempt to strike'. Additionally, when two offences occur simultaneously, the Referee sanctions the more serious offence. I think these arguments I've put forward are irrefutable, although I'm flexible enough to agree with @Russell Jones that this game is going South and you're not protecting the safety of the players (which is our number 1 job) if this numbnut is allowed to stay on the FOP. Primarily, albeit quite unusual, SFP does not require contact, it is the action that defines SFP, nor does a DFK because contact offences allow for 'attempt to contact'
 
Big Cat said:
. Primarily, albeit quite unusual, SFP does not require contact, it is the action that defines SFP, nor does a DFK because contact offences allow for 'attempt to contact'
Click to expand...
Be a bit careful here from a technical perspective. Only kick, strike, and trip include attempt. While tackle/challenge does not include “attempt,” it also does not require contact for a foul—only that the action be careless, reckless, or EF. But that’s a very easy standard to meet here. I don’t think PIADM should be considered here at all. I think the only real question is whether the challenge is reckless or with excessive force. i think either of those can be thoughtfully supported. (And game context could help push one way or the other.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top