Off the ball incidents

[CapnBloodbeard]

Personally, I don't think that's what is meant by excessive. By that definition, every instance of a push when players are squaring up is also a red card as that's unnecessary. If you don't consider that an automatic red card, then you don't believe the notion of 'any unnecessary contact is excessive'.

 

[Beezer]

From what I can see, the essence of the debate isn't whether CRUEF applies to 'off the ball' fouls .. Cap'n is right that by the LOTG it does. The debate is whether Any / All deliberate off the ball kicks, strikes etc can be classified in a way other than Violent Conduct ... because almost by definition any action like this is Excessive Force as the amount of force that should be being exerted in that situation is zero!

I WOULD THAT THIS COMMENT HAS JUST NAILED THE ARGUMENT .

Well done Russ.

 

[Russell Jones]

I WOULD THAT THIS COMMENT HAS JUST NAILED THE ARGUMENT .

Well done Russ.

Too kind sir, too kind

So @Beezer, intrigued to see how you'll respond to Cap'n's last post about two players 'shoving' each other also being excessive. It does seem to me that we've just ended up in a situation where it has become the 'norm' for players to be given red for VC for ANY obviously off the ball kick out (no matter how tiny and petulant) but we tend to go for C1 for AA when players shove each other (below the neck).

 

[Beezer]

If a player walks up to another player off the ball and kicks or punches him he is off ! if the kicked or punched player reacts ...he is also off ...... as for a shove in the chest ? HE SHOULD BE OFF but it seems to be something that has wrongly become acceptable in football therefore causing inconsistency amongst referees .

As i stated earlier if your out shopping with the Mrs and someone decides to come over and shove you in the chest its an act of violence !! why is acceptable on a football pitch?

 

[haywain]

If a player walks up to another player off the ball and kicks or punches him he is off ! if the kicked or punched player reacts ...he is also off ...... as for a shove in the chest ? HE SHOULD BE OFF but it seems to be something that has wrongly become acceptable in football therefore causing inconsistency amongst referees .

As i stated earlier if your out shopping with the Mrs and someone decides to come over and shove you in the chest its an act of violence !! why is acceptable on a football pitch?

It's never a red card when it happens outside Topman, mind

 

[Beezer]

And believe me ....walking round Tesco can bring on as much aggression ans playing football ever did !! but i have never yet ran up to a fellow male shopper and nutted him between the eyes !

except for the ones who hog the reduced section( They come close )

 

[haywain]

Nothing worse than waiting for the reduced section shopper....and having to pretend that you're not really waiting

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If a player walks up to another player off the ball and kicks or punches him he is off ! if the kicked or punched player reacts ...he is also off ...... as for a shove in the chest ? HE SHOULD BE OFF but it seems to be something that has wrongly become acceptable in football therefore causing inconsistency amongst referees .

As i stated earlier if your out shopping with the Mrs and someone decides to come over and shove you in the chest its an act of violence !! why is acceptable on a football pitch?

So, every single time 2 players have squared up to each other and begun handbags, you've sent them off?
The 'what's acceptable elsewhere' argument is logically flawed; a football pitch is a unique environment with different social standards. I wouldn't accept somebody shouldering me out of the way to get to an item on the shelf, but it's perfectly legal in football. Nor, for that matter, would I wish somebody to slide at my feet just because I've dropped a packet of biscuits - that would also be assault, but it's perfectly legal.

Nor, for that matter, would I want somebody to pick me up and slam me into the ground on my back because I'm holding a packet of biscuits - but that's perfectly legal in rugby....

 

[Beezer]

No i dont thats what im trying to say ! If you look at my general posting im not a rigid stick to the laws to the letter ref , i tend to be on the common sense side of the argument

I still thik though if 2 players start shoving each other or worse 40 yards off the ball they should be off...!, across the board in every game at every level would make it easy for us referees in the long run

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

I was always told that as a rule of thumb is that handbags that involve pushes to body are yellow and head are red.

 

[Declan]

The clear message we need to remember is intent. If a player swings a kick at a player off the ball his intent must surely be to strike the player and not playing the ball. This is surely violent conduct, is excessive and the player must surely be dismissed. As for two players shoving each other it depends on the context. If it follows a challenge and is a 'get out of my space' push then usually a caution suffices. If a player runs 20+ yards to push a player then surely it must be excessive force/violent conduct and the player must be dismissed.

As I said surely the answer is in the intent?

 

[Brian Hamilton]

The clear message we need to remember is intent. If a player swings a kick at a player off the ball his intent must surely be to strike the player and not playing the ball. This is surely violent conduct, is excessive and the player must surely be dismissed. As for two players shoving each other it depends on the context. If it follows a challenge and is a 'get out of my space' push then usually a caution suffices. If a player runs 20+ yards to push a player then surely it must be excessive force/violent conduct and the player must be dismissed.

As I said surely the answer is in the intent?

No such thing as intent in law @Declan, purely a judgement whether the contact (or in the case of certain offences, attempted contact) is careless, reckless or using excessive force.

 

[Declan]

I agree and accept that Brian but surely by gauging intent it would make it easier to make a decision on these incidents?

If you were to use CRUEF then surely Becham's namby pamby 1998 flick would surely only be a caution at best.

If not what makes that different? Is it what the player is intending to do?

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I agree and accept that Brian but surely by gauging intent it would make it easier to make a decision on these incidents?

If you were to use CRUEF then surely Becham's namby pamby 1998 flick would surely only be a caution at best.

If not what makes that different? Is it what the player is intending to do?

Beckham's flick was entirely unnecessary as he was prone on the floor with the ball out of play. Therefore any action of the type he undertook was with excessive force. If we introduce the element of the referee trying to deduce the offender's intent, then it muddies the waters. With law as it is currently written, it is only the opinion of the referee which matters. If you introduce intent then you have the element of "he didn't mean it referee..." Stick to law, it makes life easier

 

[Declan]

Yes that's what I was thinking but the way it sounded did make me think I was interpreting it wrong.

 

[McTavish]

No such thing as intent in law.

Slightly off topic and whilst I agree that intent should largely be disregarded, surely something like the mandatory YC for commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack means that the referee must judge intent - it is not a caution for breaking up a promising attack but only for doing it on purpose and thus intent comes into play.
.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Slightly off topic and whilst I agree that intent should largely be disregarded, surely something like the mandatory YC for commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack means that the referee must judge intent - it is not a caution for breaking up a promising attack but only for doing it on purpose and thus intent comes into play.
.

The referee must judge if it was a promising attack or if the foul was for tactical purposes, not the intent of the player. The player may have intended to trip the opponent without knowing his actions would be interpreted as fulfilling the criteria set out above.

 

[McTavish]

The referee must judge if it was a promising attack or if the foul was for tactical purposes, not the intent of the player. The player may have intended to trip the opponent without knowing his actions would be interpreted as fulfilling the criteria set out above.

But surely if the referee has to judge whether the foul was committed for tactical purposes he has to judge the intent of the player. He explicitly has to judge whether the foul has been committed on purpose or not and thus what the player intended.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

But surely if the referee has to judge whether the foul was committed for tactical purposes he has to judge the intent of the player. He explicitly has to judge whether the foul has been committed on purpose or not and thus what the player intended.

Not necessarily and that was the distinction I was trying to make. Example, player running down the wing, head down, chasing an opponent. he trips the opponent at the moment the opponent is about to cross the ball to a team mate standing alone, unmarked in the penalty area with only the goalkeeper to beat. The offending player only trips an opponent. The referee makes the decision that this breaks up a promising attack.

 

[McTavish]

But according to the law he has to make two judgements:
a) the foul breaks up a promising attack.
b) the purpose of the foul was to break up that attack.

In your example the referee has to not only decide that the winger broke up a promising attack, he also has to decide that he did it on purpose i.e .he intended to break up the attack.

As long as the referee has to judge the purpose of the foul doesn't he have to judge the intent of the player committing the foul?
Are not "he committed the foul on purpose" and "he intended to commit the foul" essentially the same thing?