Manager 'He's really not that sort of player!!! 
Steven Gerrard.... Hold my beer!!
Steven Gerrard.... Hold my beer!!
What are you giving?
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
- Status
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
When the Premiership started, in association with Sky, it was a new limelight for referees too, and unlike today where I think we have officials who referee the game, in those days, the referees reffed the occasion, Poll, was a main character in this revolution, along with Rennie, Styles, Ellerly, Bennett and Riley and so on. The idea was to give the watching audience the most exciting spectacle that they could, and the refs had a full part to play in this. Sending off Gerrard v Utd at Anfield would be frowned upon. Today, if that was Oliver, not sending off Gerrard for that would be frowned upon. Diff expectations, diff era
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Manager 'He's really not that sort of player!!!
Steven Gerrard.... Hold my beer!!
It does not show it in the clip but am sure it was the AR who called it...
Yes, two reds in 10 seconds for Stevie G these days. First tackle didn't even warrant a foul in the clip despite excessive forceManager 'He's really not that sort of player!!!
Steven Gerrard.... Hold my beer!!
DP is an english FA code for offences of unsporting behaviour and not specifically listed as a cautionable offence in the LOTG.
The offence is PIADM and its whether you deem the players action as reckless for unsporting behaviour or excessive force for SFP or indeed careless for no card.
This is where the FA codes confuse the LOTG somewhat.
Interesting question... can you show a red for an idfk offence? My reading of the law is yes, but a very hard "sell" imo
Semantics..... 'What football expects' nowadays is 'bye bye'!!! No excuses, sludge tackle, 3 game ban, NEXT!!!
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Stevie Gee... ah... stamping on Herrera with malicious intent... in his dotage... both of them are exactly that sort of player. Deserved. On both counts.
On Veron. Has to be red. Everything about that screams early bath. I am a massive Gerrard fan. But that's abhorrent for me.
On Veron. Has to be red. Everything about that screams early bath. I am a massive Gerrard fan. But that's abhorrent for me.
bester
RefChat Addict
I’d be sending him and starting with a DFK.
D
Deleted member 3014
Guest
Yellow for playing in a dangerous manner for me, stern word and off we go.
No.
What's a yellow for playing in a dangerous manner? PIADM is an IDFK offense.
A yellow card is for committing a offense recklessly. Only DFK offenses can be committed recklessly.
You can go yellow if you want but you can't give an IDFK for it.
D
Deleted member 3014
Guest
In that case then no yellow for playing in a dangerous manner & idfk to opposition.
Reminds me of keeper picking up a back pass not warranting a caution, the lotg does baffle me sometimes with offences that don’t require a card.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just some context from the laws to aid the conversation:
"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the
ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes
preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
"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."
Playing in a dangerous manner is not listed as a cautionable offence, therefore to caution Gerrard, you would have to give a reckless DFK offence.
Nowhere in 'Direct free kicks' does it exclude offences without contact, it just says that if there is contact, it HAS to be a DFK.
It is certainly a lunge, using both legs and endangering the safety of an opponent, therefore it SHOULD be red, especially in the professional game.
Feel free to correct me, this is just my understanding of it. I've confused myself about contact vs no contact even more typing this out.
"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the
ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes
preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
"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."
Playing in a dangerous manner is not listed as a cautionable offence, therefore to caution Gerrard, you would have to give a reckless DFK offence.
Nowhere in 'Direct free kicks' does it exclude offences without contact, it just says that if there is contact, it HAS to be a DFK.
It is certainly a lunge, using both legs and endangering the safety of an opponent, therefore it SHOULD be red, especially in the professional game.
Feel free to correct me, this is just my understanding of it. I've confused myself about contact vs no contact even more typing this out.
one
RefChat Addict
Restart and the sanction are not directly tied together. If its USB its a yellow and if its SFP its a red. Nowhere in the good book it says there has to be contact for either or the restart has to be DFK. USB in particular is very open ended and it all comes down to the interpretation of the referee.
So for me, while its well within the law to deem this USB for a yellow and IFK restart, I would deem it SFP with a red card and IFK restart. The same way throwing of a punch which does not connect is VC, lunging at an opponent in a challenge using excessive force is a SFP even if there is no contact.
The restart would have to be IFK. Had we had "attempts to" added for a challenge or a tackle for DFK offences then it would have be direct but as it stands now "attempts to" only applies to trips, kicks and strikes for DFKs.
So for me, while its well within the law to deem this USB for a yellow and IFK restart, I would deem it SFP with a red card and IFK restart. The same way throwing of a punch which does not connect is VC, lunging at an opponent in a challenge using excessive force is a SFP even if there is no contact.
The restart would have to be IFK. Had we had "attempts to" added for a challenge or a tackle for DFK offences then it would have be direct but as it stands now "attempts to" only applies to trips, kicks and strikes for DFKs.
I disagree. A trip, kick, or strike implies that contact was made so the qualifier of "attempts to..." is necessary. That qualifier is not needed on a tackle. A tackle is defined in the LOTG as "a challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)".
We see tackles that don't make contact with the opponent all the time. However, we almost always judge them to not be careless, reckless, or using excessive force. But, there's nothing to say that a tackle cannot be careless, reckless, or uses excessive force when contact is not made with an opponent. There is nothing the laws that say you can sanction something as SFP and then give an IDFK restart.
one
RefChat Addict
This is not the way I look at it or interpret it but I do understand you and you do make sense in a way.
This however doesn't make logical sense to me. There is nothing in the law that says you can sanction something as SFP and then you have to give a DFK either. SFP is defined and explained independent of the restart. You determine the restart based on the DFK and IFK offences.
one
RefChat Addict
Every chicken is a bird. Every bird is not a chicken
Excessive force/playing in a dangerous manner is defined in the DFK section.
EDIT: just in case I need to clarify that, every excessive force DFK offence is SFP...
- Status