A&H

Headbutt or not?

Brutality by definition is 'savage physical violence'. I Fail to see how a headbutt into the guys shoulder blade is even an attempt of that when the force used was so minimal, the player didn't even notice. Would we punish him for VC for using the same force with his hand?
Yes if it makes contact as it will not be negligible and required by law. Oh or you could just define it as thuggery which has no place in football.

But in that scenario, VC has a definition regarding striking an opponent in the head or face as VC, but even that states 'unless the force used was negligible' which in this case it definitely was
If we are using definitions, striking can only be done by hand or an implement. Not the head.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
that question isn't even relevant

I disagree. VC doesn't define which part of the body is used to hurt the opponent, unless it's to the face or head. My point here was if the same level of force was used with the hand to push an opponent as the headbutt (with negligible force) in the shoulder blade, would you use the same card?
 
Apparently Zidane got sent off for pushing an opponent in the chest with his head in 2006 the world cup final. :D:D
 
I disagree. VC doesn't define which part of the body is used to hurt the opponent, unless it's to the face or head. My point here was if the same level of force was used with the hand to push an opponent as the headbutt (with negligible force) in the shoulder blade, would you use the same card?
You're right that VC doesn't specify which body part. But are you going to argue that there isn't a difference in aggression level, or even in perception, between use of different body parts?

You're comparing apples and oranges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
So you'd send off 2 players who 'square up' to each other because they initiate head to head contact?

If a player puts head in towards another player while they are ‘squaring up’......they’re walking. No ifs no buts, they’re gone.

And if you don’t do the same, you need to seriously think about what you are condoning. And understand you have very possibly just become LWR.
 
Padfoot does make a fair point. when I am cautioning players mainly in youth I hear that as a defence, as well as you can't book me for that after red GK brings down blue player in the area! There are refs out there who bottle decisions which makes our lives harder. I know a ref who has been doing it for 6 years and has not issued one red. Yes he does a lot of youth but so do I and I have a few cherrys to my name and at 11 aside youth this season I don't have a card free game. I am probably LWR for appying the laws.
 
Padfoot does make a fair point. when I am cautioning players mainly in youth I hear that as a defence, as well as you can't book me for that after red GK brings down blue player in the area! There are refs out there who bottle decisions which makes our lives harder. I know a ref who has been doing it for 6 years and has not issued one red. Yes he does a lot of youth but so do I and I have a few cherrys to my name and at 11 aside youth this season I don't have a card free game. I am probably LWR for appying the laws.

I think it's unfair to suggest that his point is bottling a decision. As both the Rashford and RIcharlison incidents merited lengthy discussions on this forum as to whether they were red's or not, it clearly shows that the issue is subjective.
 
Padfoot does make a fair point. when I am cautioning players mainly in youth I hear that as a defence, as well as you can't book me for that after red GK brings down blue player in the area! There are refs out there who bottle decisions which makes our lives harder. I know a ref who has been doing it for 6 years and has not issued one red. Yes he does a lot of youth but so do I and I have a few cherrys to my name and at 11 aside youth this season I don't have a card free game. I am probably LWR for appying the laws.

I had my tongue in cheek when I made the above comment. I happen to agree with @Padfoot even though sometimes I think he uses a sledgehammer to crack a walnut! ;)

I personally think when an incident happens there are 3 types of referee:

The first type is maybe quite new, or inexperienced or not very confident - this can lead them to either bottle decisions because they are scared of the consequences or not be in a position to see them in the first place and only see the "what happens after" These are the referees that need help mentoring and support on how to handle these types of situation, which will also hopefully come as they get more experience.

The second type is the ref that doesn't want any hassle, they have no ambition to progress any higher and are appointed to games by virtue of of them being available. Some of them haven't looked at the LOTG for many years and are happy to do "easy" games, even if that means avoiding a potentially game changing decision. These in my view are the true LWR, but in many cases without them the number of games covered plummets - one appt sec in my area told me that if he didn't have his 50+ age group refs to rely on, he'd struggle to cover 25% of his games.

The third are the ones that want to do the right thing, won't shy away from making the tough or unpopular calls, but sometimes make mistakes - whether that be in application of law or on how they interpret a given situation. I'd put myself in this category. Have I had players that I should have sent off but didn't? Yes I have. But i'm also clear, whilst i'm an experienced referee and still looking to go higher, i'm still learning as I go, I make mistakes from time to time, but i'm willing to take on constructive feedback from other referees who watch me along with observers to help me make my game better and avoid making the same mistakes over and over.
 
That is a head butt, im not even sure the Richarlison one was a head butt more of a rubbing heads together.

Cant see how you can have two different outcomes though just because a player isn't on the FOP.
Yeah, that’s exactly my point, it seems like he’s really gotten away with that
 
Just to clarify.....I wasn’t suggesting that anyone was ‘bottling ‘ this decision....rather that there appeared to be a misconception that there was an acceptable amount of force when it comes to head to head contact and VC.
 
I had my tongue in cheek when I made the above comment. I happen to agree with @Padfoot even though sometimes I think he uses a sledgehammer to crack a walnut! ;)

I personally think when an incident happens there are 3 types of referee:

The first type is maybe quite new, or inexperienced or not very confident - this can lead them to either bottle decisions because they are scared of the consequences or not be in a position to see them in the first place and only see the "what happens after" These are the referees that need help mentoring and support on how to handle these types of situation, which will also hopefully come as they get more experience.

The second type is the ref that doesn't want any hassle, they have no ambition to progress any higher and are appointed to games by virtue of of them being available. Some of them haven't looked at the LOTG for many years and are happy to do "easy" games, even if that means avoiding a potentially game changing decision. These in my view are the true LWR, but in many cases without them the number of games covered plummets - one appt sec in my area told me that if he didn't have his 50+ age group refs to rely on, he'd struggle to cover 25% of his games.

The third are the ones that want to do the right thing, won't shy away from making the tough or unpopular calls, but sometimes make mistakes - whether that be in application of law or on how they interpret a given situation. I'd put myself in this category. Have I had players that I should have sent off but didn't? Yes I have. But i'm also clear, whilst i'm an experienced referee and still looking to go higher, i'm still learning as I go, I make mistakes from time to time, but i'm willing to take on constructive feedback from other referees who watch me along with observers to help me make my game better and avoid making the same mistakes over and over.
And by vertue of your definition, no true LWR would bother to be on this forum. :)
 
Are people missing the fact Alioski climbed into the opponents dugout and pushed the coach?
People are hellbent on the Canos head butt but have ignored what Alioski done prior to being "attacked".
He should be climbing into the opposition's dugout nor should he shove/push the coach.

Not condoning what Canos done, and on the field of play would definitely get a red, but so would Alioski for me.
No reason to get into the technical area, or push and shove the coach, which got Canos into the position he ended up in.
At best, 2 yellows in this very situation.
 
Are people missing the fact Alioski climbed into the opponents dugout and pushed the coach?
People are hellbent on the Canos head butt but have ignored what Alioski done prior to being "attacked".
He should be climbing into the opposition's dugout nor should he shove/push the coach.

Not condoning what Canos done, and on the field of play would definitely get a red, but so would Alioski for me.
No reason to get into the technical area, or push and shove the coach, which got Canos into the position he ended up in.
At best, 2 yellows in this very situation.
They were 1-0 up with 9 mins to go and shielding the ball, which meant he tried to get the ball back and it was no more than slight pushes, whereas that was literally a headbutt. In my opinion anyway
 
He just got hold of it at the same time Alioski jumped in.

It's not like he held on to it and kept it from him.

Alioski jumped in and pushed and shoved him. He raised his hands. It's no less violent conduct, as per LOTG, as the headbutt.
But you are seeing it as a Leeds fan who was desperate, at the time, for his team to get a goal for a point, which obviously came shortly after.
If it was reversed and the Brentford player shoved Bielsa, you would be arguing that he should be banned for not only jumping into the Leeds dugout but also pushing the Leeds coach.

You are not looking at it objectively. You are saying it's all about opinions, but you have not argued at all the actions of any Leeds players during the match but have mentioned all the issues that Brentford had.

What's your opinion on Jansson by the way?
 
He just got hold of it at the same time Alioski jumped in.

It's not like he held on to it and kept it from him.

Alioski jumped in and pushed and shoved him. He raised his hands. It's no less violent conduct, as per LOTG, as the headbutt.
But you are seeing it as a Leeds fan who was desperate, at the time, for his team to get a goal for a point, which obviously came shortly after.
If it was reversed and the Brentford player shoved Bielsa, you would be arguing that he should be banned for not only jumping into the Leeds dugout but also pushing the Leeds coach.

You are not looking at it objectively. You are saying it's all about opinions, but you have not argued at all the actions of any Leeds players during the match but have mentioned all the issues that Brentford had.

What's your opinion on Jansson by the way?
My opinion on Jansson is that he shouldn’t have said it and deserves whatever sanction comes his way. I also agree Ayling should’ve been sent off (but so should the Brentford player who somehow didn’t get a second booking). I haven’t argued about anything else because there’s nothing else I can think of that’s controversial. As a referee, I’m genuinely not biased when I speak about referees at Leeds and tend to agree with them, but simply don’t agree. If it were the other way round, I’d still expect a red card and MAYBE a yellow for the player trying to get the ball back.
 
OK.

So a red card for a weak headbutt into a players shoulder blade but maybe a yellow for pushing and shoving a coach off the pitch inside opponents dugout.

Please let me play in games you officiate in.
 
Back
Top