Coventry vs Birmingham

[Anubis]

Why wouldn't this be VC? If the little kickouts are and the "headbutts" where the player pushs his head into anothers face but not much else fall under VC then surely this is? He hasn't attempted to play or challenge for the ball. He's simply kicked an opponent. It's VC.

slight correction, the pushing of head is not v/c, it was for years, however it now needs the brutality aspect.
The little kickouts ( beckham v argentina) used to be v/c, again this today is not a red card, its, a flick of the leg, not, a kick,

your last point is nail on head though, it is a kick, it is v/c.

 

[GraemeS]

The tackle of a coward.

Which is still not a red card offence.

 

[Justylove]

There was a very similar one in the Forest v Luton game last night. Luton defender has taken out the Forest attacker down the left wing.

The issue here is that whilst a red is very supportable in both cases, vast majority of referees will go yellow on both challenges, meaning that expectation (rightly or wrongly) is that a yellow is issued.

I do feel like these types of challenges do have potential to cause injury as the player with the ball is clearly not expecting the contact there. Those types of offences where there is zero possibility of playing the ball, should in my opinion be subject to a more stringent sanction than just a caution, however the issue then gets more subjective when you make the consideration of playing the ball, which will lead to a lack of consistency across decisions, something that football wants to eradicate.

 

[GraemeS]

The complicating factor for me is that there are 2 separate actions :

1. A big old swipe at mid-calf height that misses
2. Followed almost immediately by an ankle tap trip, which is what actually brings him down

If 1. connects, it's RC all day long
If he hadn't attempted 1. and it's just 2, it's YC all day long.

From the ref's angle. not sure he can tell which action brought the player down, although you can argue how relevant that is

In law, I think you can justify RC for the attempt of 1. even though he misses
I also think YC for the actual trip is justifiable

A grey area - who knew it !

I still don't even see the "big swipe" as you put it as a RC offence. It looks forceful in slow-mo - at real speed, it's an attempt to trip and nothing more. I'm open to the idea that an attempt to trip can be executed so badly that it genuinely becomes dangerous play, but I don't see that having happened here.

 

[Big Cat]

Players would soon think twice if this supportable dismissal became common place. I'd commend the Ref for having the spine to go against the grain

 

[Justylove]

Players would soon think twice if this supportable dismissal became common place. I'd commend the Ref for having the spine to go against the grain

I agree entirely. I've got a nagging feeling that the cars will be appealed and the sending off overturned though, which sends a message that "it's just a caution"

 

[GraemeS]

Players would soon think twice if this supportable dismissal became common place.

Agreed - which is why I'm 100% in favour of this being written into law.

I'd commend the Ref for having the spine to go against the grain

However I disagree strongly with this. What you've described as "against the grain" could be much more simply described as "probably wrong and definitely unexpected". It's last week's referee at a high level and makes life more difficult for the referees who aren't in it to change the attitudes of football single-handedly

 

[Max2]

Which is still not a red card offence.

Haven't expressed my judgement for either sanction, big G.

 

[Mooseybaby]

6 Birmingham players in the face of the referee, should be a slam dunk charge for failing to control players.

 

[Justylove]

Agreed - which is why I'm 100% in favour of this being written into law.

However I disagree strongly with this. What you've described as "against the grain" could be much more simply described as "probably wrong and definitely unexpected". It's last week's referee at a high level and makes life more difficult for the referees who aren't in it to change the attitudes of football single-handedly

There is a fine line between being "brave" and being "caught out" in situations like this.

If his decision is supported by the powers that be, then great, if it's overturned on appeal then (rightly or wrongly) he's incorrect.

If he continues to send off for this type of challenge if he's overruled on this occasion, it's a slippery slope in terms of what games he'll get given going forwards.

Without wanting to sound too moralistic here, as referees our role is to do the job that our bosses want. If they want this type of challenge to be a yellow card only, then that's what we need to do, until or unless they change their mind.

The one thing I used to hate was the send off for a DOGSO in the area where an attacker had just been too clever for a keeper and been clipped as the keeper had tried to make a save. It always sat really wrong on me to send the keeper off for it, but as a referee that's what I had to do, regardless of my own personal feelings. That's exactly the same here, iighr be thinking "I want to give you a red here" but if the powers that be are saying "yellow" then that's what I need to do.

 

[GraemeS]

That's exactly fair, and exactly what I mean by saying I want this written into law. I genuinely think the option to go for a harsher penalty should be available to the referee for these really cynical challenges.

But the idea of going out of my way to give a decision that no one expects and that I think is wrong in current law? Not a chance, and not something I can support other referees doing either.

 

[Big Cat]

Agreed - which is why I'm 100% in favour of this being written into law.

However I disagree strongly with this. What you've described as "against the grain" could be much more simply described as "probably wrong and definitely unexpected". It's last week's referee at a high level and makes life more difficult for the referees who aren't in it to change the attitudes of football single-handedly

Yes, but I've never been one who subscribes to the tenet of 'card board cut-out referees'. In addition to being the usual USB, the challenge in the OP endangered the safety of an opponent. I'd have sent the player off. I don't care much for what 'last week's Ref' would've done, if indeed that makes me 'last week's Ref'. There's no right or wrong, there's only, 'I agree with the dismissal'. BTW, I can't be bothered with debating it

 

[Big Cat]

There was a very similar one in the Forest v Luton game last night

I was watching that game on the 'red button'. That FT didn't endanger the safety of an opponent IMO, it was just the usual USB
Generally speaking however, I'd lean towards protecting opponent's safety (and my Match Control), if there's no possibility of playing the ball
Not sure I've had something like this in a game of mine as yet, but I'm fairly sure I'd lean heavily that way. I'd be disappointed in myself if I didn't

 

[GraemeS]

Yes, but I've never been one who subscribes to the tenet of 'card board cut-out referees'. In addition to being the usual USB, the challenge in the OP endangered the safety of an opponent. I'd have sent the player off. I don't care much for what 'last week's Ref' would've done, if indeed that makes me 'last week's Ref'. There's no right or wrong, there's only, 'I agree with the dismissal'. BTW, I can't be bothered with debating it

I mean, I don't believe that for a second - leg-to-leg contact is minimal, so if that's a dangerous tackle then we'd be looking at red card for anything that knocks an opponent to the floor.

Obviously if your subjective opinion is that you genuinely think it meets the threshold for SFP then of course you should be sending off for it. However I think there are quite a few people in this thread who see the cynical nature of the challenge, feel like it "should" be a red and then work backwards from that to try and squeeze it into SFP because they need to justify the red they want to give.

 

[RustyRef]

There's an increasing move to sanction these challenges as red cards, and for me that is a good thing. There is zero attempt to play the ball, he is just trying to kick the opponent, how can that be accepted as a valid football action? You could call it as SFP for excessive force, as any force is excessive if you can't win the ball, or you could say VC as the fact there is no attempt to play the ball just means you are deliberately kicking an opponent.

Worth adding that this would have been a red card in Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc, for many years, for some reason in England we think it is acceptable to deliberately kick an opponent to break up an attack.

 

[ladbroke8745]

Well well well....
Same incident.
Different game.
Same outcome.
Start about 43 seconds in.

 

[GraemeS]

There's an increasing move to sanction these challenges as red cards, and for me that is a good thing. There is zero attempt to play the ball, he is just trying to kick the opponent, how can that be accepted as a valid football action? You could call it as SFP for excessive force, as any force is excessive if you can't win the ball, or you could say VC as the fact there is no attempt to play the ball just means you are deliberately kicking an opponent.

Worth adding that this would have been a red card in Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc, for many years, for some reason in England we think it is acceptable to deliberately kick an opponent to break up an attack.

Valid football action? No, that's why it's a foul and a yellow card.

But while I'm not generally a fan of asking referees to judge intent, I think it's both necessary and easy in this situation. Do you think he kicked/tripped the player because he wanted to hurt him? Or, do you think he kicked/tripped the player due to the tactical situation - i.e. he was concerned about the risk to his goal and thought the yellow card everyone expected was worth taking in exchange for stopping that?

The former is VC and if you genuinely believe it was an attempt to injure then I'll happily support a red card. But if you agree that it was an action for tactical reasons, then our starting point has to be a YC for SPA, and it can only becomes SFP if it's done in a dangerous enough way to meet the various excessive force/brutality/endangering the safety of the opponent. And I can't see this example as dangerous, without suddenly having to include a lot of other challenges that are currently considered fairly innocuous.

 

[one]

Well well well....
Same incident.
Different game.
Same outcome.
Start about 43 seconds in.

I don't agree with a red here but won't argue against it. We don't need this in our game but if this is to be red, for me a dive to get a pen or get an opponent sent off should come ahead of this in terms of being red.

The biggest problem for me here though is, what are the chances of this being a red if white players didn't react the way they did? Zero

 

[JamesL]

Valid football action? No, that's why it's a foul and a yellow card.

But while I'm not generally a fan of asking referees to judge intent, I think it's both necessary and easy in this situation. Do you think he kicked/tripped the player because he wanted to hurt him? Or, do you think he kicked/tripped the player due to the tactical situation - i.e. he was concerned about the risk to his goal and thought the yellow card everyone expected was worth taking in exchange for stopping that?

The former is VC and if you genuinely believe it was an attempt to injure then I'll happily support a red card. But if you agree that it was an action for tactical reasons, then our starting point has to be a YC for SPA, and it can only becomes SFP if it's done in a dangerous enough way to meet the various excessive force/brutality/endangering the safety of the opponent. And I can't see this example as dangerous, without suddenly having to include a lot of other challenges that are currently considered fairly innocuous.

It is dangerous though. And I can't think what other challenges we would have to grade the same.
As I said earlier, if you take the Xhaka example. And the Joe Ralls example and find those threads you will find me vehemently opposing red cards.
The difference for me is that both the Joe Ralls and the Xhaka ones the foul is made from the front of the player or reaching around so they have the opportunity to take defensive action to break the fall. This is just a straight up kicks at the players ankle and the first he knows about it is the taste of mud

Having been the victim of someone just kicking my legs from behind (albeit playing rugby with "friends") I can tell you my safety was endangered by that action. It bloody well hurt for weeks after. It's the surprise element the body can't react quick enough and you just smash the floor with whatever part hits the ground first.

 

[ARF]

Well well well....
Same incident.
Different game.
Same outcome.
Start about 43 seconds in.

Don't agree that's the same tackle, the Birmingham one is a swipe which trips the opponent, whereas this one is more of a straight lunge straight into the opponent's Achilles:



Birmingham one I thought red in real time but watching the replay I think it's only a yellow. This one I thought red in real time, still thinking red after watching it again.