A&H

Headbutt or not?

I don’t think the referee had a great game, bu
ladbroke8745 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t pushing or shoving it was a scramble to get the ball back. Nothing ‘violent’ about it, or you’d be seeing about 5 reds per game. I suppose I am inexperienced but seemingly I’m not the only person who thinks this
 
The Referee Store
I think the ref had a sub-par game tbh (no criticism, it happens to all of us), but I totally understand how he missed it; I don’t think he’s bottled it, just didn’t see. I just fail to understand how the three man panel or ex pro referees reviewing it don’t see it as VC
 
Tino Best said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve got an 11v11 youth game on Saturday and I’m quite nervous because last time I had U15s I had my worst game of my short career so far and really wished I had booked players earlier on (I hadn’t booked anyone before this game), but I’ve hopefully learnt my lesson...
 
Padfoot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sadly, IFAB disagrees with you as they now define violent conduct as …

An action, which is not a challenge for the ball, which uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent or when a player deliberately strikes someone on the head or face unless the force is negligible

Therefore sending two players off when they square up to each other and make just the slightest bit of contact is no longer supported by law. I personally agree that if there is contact they should walk, but IFAB have decided otherwise.
 
RustyRef said:
Sadly, IFAB disagrees with you as they now define violent conduct as …

An action, which is not a challenge for the ball, which uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent or when a player deliberately strikes someone on the head or face unless the force is negligible

Therefore sending two players off when they square up to each other and make just the slightest bit of contact is no longer supported by law. I personally agree that if there is contact they should walk, but IFAB have decided otherwise.
Click to expand...

‘Strike’ is the operative word .....head to head contact is not a strike....it is a ‘butt’ and therefore outside the ‘negligible force’ excuse.

But it still comes back to how much force is permissible when making head to head contact with another player?
 
This seems another area where there is "guidance" that is different in different countries/leagues (MLS for example) that is not in the LotG, and the recent precedents from the PL are not totally instructive.

The LotG don't say that anything to the head or with the head with force is a RC. We have to decide in each situation if an act meets e.g. the VC criteria:

"In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

If you think the force used was negligible, then you might not necessarily give a red card, but YMMV;)

(EDIT: sorry, Rusty's post was invisible when I wrote this. Good point about "strikes". But the LotG don't specify if a head butt is also a strike. My feeling is we can use the same criteria for head to head. In the end we have to judge the force used. Context is also key.)
 
Padfoot said:
‘Strike’ is the operative word .....head to head contact is not a strike....it is a ‘butt’ and therefore outside the ‘negligible force’ excuse.

But it still comes back to how much force is permissible when making head to head contact with another player?
Click to expand...

Yes, but unless I've missed something the closest you have to a head butt is striking. Indeed under Law 12 they say that a direct free kick is awarded if "a player strikes or attempts to strike an opponent (including (head-butt)", so given head-butt isn't mentioned anywhere else you have to class it as striking.
 
Just to clarify, this incident isn't actually head-to-head contact: it's head to shoulder. So given that those advocating a red card keep saying "head-to-head contact", does the fact that didn't happen change anyone's opinion?
 
I wouldn't really class that as a "headbutt", but more of "headnudge". The force used was so minuscule that Alioski didn't even appear to register that it had happened.

That doesn't mean we should let him get away with it, but I'm not convinced that there was enough in it to be violent conduct, especially considering he made contact with Alioski's back/shoulder rather than his head.
 
GraemeS said:
Just to clarify, this incident isn't actually head-to-head contact: it's head to shoulder. So given that those advocating a red card keep saying "head-to-head contact", does the fact that didn't happen change anyone's opinion?
Click to expand...

It’s still an ‘attempted’ butt....red card all day long and twice on a Sunday......
 
RustyRef said:
Yes, but unless I've missed something the closest you have to a head butt is striking. Indeed under Law 12 they say that a direct free kick is awarded if "a player strikes or attempts to strike an opponent (including (head-butt)", so given head-butt isn't mentioned anywhere else you have to class it as striking.
Click to expand...

More excuses for not making the difficult decisions?

Just give the red card and let the appeals sort them out.....
 
Padfoot said:
More excuses for not making the difficult decisions?

Just give the red card and let the appeals sort them out.....
Click to expand...
It's not about shying away from dismissals, it concerns sending players off based on one's own interpretation of the Law
 
Big Cat said:
It's not about shying away from dismissals, it concerns sending players off based on one's own interpretation of the Law
Click to expand...

If there is head to head contact.....what would football expect?

‘Sorry player, but I’m not sending him off after he’s shoved his head into yours, because in my opinion it was negligible force.....’

Yeah....good luck selling that.
 
Padfoot said:
If there is head to head contact.....what would football expect?

‘Sorry player, but I’m not sending him off after he’s shoved his head into yours, because in my opinion it was negligible force.....’

Yeah....good luck selling that.
Click to expand...

Er... except we see it on telly.

I had one grassroots game a couple of weeks ago. Fouled player gets up, goes head against head to the player that’s just fouled him, who holds his ground. No jerking ot butting.

It was mildly aggressive yes. The guy has got up and gone head to head so I couldn’t say it’s not aggressive. But negligible. Enormo rollicking and YC. Lesser warning for the other with a reminder not to get involved.

Unless all head to head becomes mandatory res in law then there are going to be YC scenarios (that have support in the laws).

Bonus: I think it would be difficult to write a law making head to head mandatory RC because of ”victims” that stand their ground. Interpreting how active/passive they are is difficult as it is.
 
santa sangria said:
Er... except we see it on telly.

I had one grassroots game a couple of weeks ago. Fouled player gets up, goes head against head to the player that’s just fouled him, who holds his ground. No jerking ot butting.

It was mildly aggressive yes. The guy has got up and gone head to head so I couldn’t say it’s not aggressive. But negligible. Enormo rollicking and YC. Lesser warning for the other with a reminder not to get involved.

Unless all head to head becomes mandatory res in law then there are going to be YC scenarios (that have support in the laws).

Bonus: I think it would be difficult to write a law making head to head mandatory RC because of ”victims” that stand their ground. Interpreting how active/passive they are is difficult as it is.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the telly....it must be 100% correct if it’s on the telly.......
 
Padfoot said:
More excuses for not making the difficult decisions?

Just give the red card and let the appeals sort them out.....
Click to expand...

Not really, given that it is me that is applying law as it is written and you who is being maverick. Like it or not they have changed law to mean that minor head to head contact is no longer a red card.
 
RustyRef said:
Not really, given that it is me that is applying law as it is written and you who is being maverick. Like it or not they have changed law to mean that minor head to head contact is no longer a red card.
Click to expand...

Except that they haven’t......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top