A&H

Christchurch vs Lymington Town - Wessex League

The Referee Store
Wow. What the "game" expects and what the law expects here are two different things...
What the manager sees is a player winning the ball.
What I see as a referee is a 2 footed lunge from the side using excessive force particularly the second leg. I don't see it as incidental contact, it's a poor challenge..Text book SFP almost.
It's the second leg for me that makes this a red card. Lucky not to break the leg as it wraps it around his own.
 
Glad to see I've not lost the plot completely then! I saw the slo-mo clip first from which I was absolutely certain it was a red, I think it's a little harder to detect from the real time clip but the referee obviously had a good view of it to give the red card!
 
I'm with all of the above posters on this one.

In real time I thought good challenge, but the slo-mo doesn't look good at all - it's the trailing leg that makes it a red for me. Excellent decision.
 
I've no problem with a red here.

Having watched the replay in slow-mo, the only mitigation I can see is that the trailing leg remains bent and he doesnt go right through the player with his leg straight and studs showing, which is what players do when they're really trying to break legs.

But it can still easily be seen as red thats for sure, endangering an opponent and all that
 
I was toying at posting this @Alex Rush-Fear as it's pretty close to home for me. Initially I was thinking "orange" but the slo mo sold it as a red. It's the right leg coming through that does it and "traps" the defenders leg. It ticks the boxes for "endangering the safety"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
from the first clip I think my inexperience would have given a yellow.

This is why being on these forums is a good thing. At full speed, I probably would have gone yellow. My reasoning was that yes, he got the ball, but he also got a lot of player.

On slow-motion, definitely a red. That type of "scissoring" action (maybe not the right term, but I'm struggling to find a better one at the moment) ramps up the force associated with the challenge. I'm always on alert to catch these types of actions, as they are definitely dangerous.
 
Is anyone else thinking there's an argument for some sort of disciplinary action against the Red player too?
 
I can see what you're getting at but I think he's trying to shield the ball and ends up getting his legs tangled up with the blue player.
 
Slow motion close-ups = Zero value
He's a few inches off the ground for some a few tens of milliseconds = Reckless Play
It's probably a 7 and a half on the 1 to 10 scale, with 9 and 10 being SFP, so the ref got it wrong for me. The slo-mo scissoring thing on this occasion is a function of having two legs rather than one and has nought to do with scissors
 
My first viewing was a caution, but having seen it again I think red. He's off the ground with both feet off the floor in at least part of the challenge, his left leg is straight and then his right leg following through in a scissor type motion is incredibly dangerous.
 
If this exact tackle happened in EPL 10 times (with VAR), how many of them do you think would be red? I know that is not the standard but they do have quiet a few decent referees.

In isolation I am giving yellow here. Context of the game may change this to red for me but we only have a short clip.
 
Context of the game may change this to red for me but we only have a short clip.

Surely if you are giving a red because of the context of the game, you are giving a red in isolation.
Endangering an opponent is endangering an opponent, no?
 
Surely if you are giving a red because of the context of the game, you are giving a red in isolation.
Endangering an opponent is endangering an opponent, no?
Nope. Context gives you a lot more to interpret an fit this to a definition. As it is it does not fit the definition of UEF for me. However if he intended to hurt his opponent, that changes things. Not knowing the context of the game, I can't judge that.
 
Surely if you are giving a red because of the context of the game, you are giving a red in isolation.
Endangering an opponent is endangering an opponent, no?

On clear calls, the offense is the offense. But there are calls that are close and could go either way (the proverbial "orange" card). On orange cards (or on borderline caution/no caution), the nature of the game matter a lot.
 
The R, of course, has a completely different angle than the camera. I see at least a yellow, but am not horrified by red.

Slow motion close-ups = Zero value
He's a few inches off the ground for some a few tens of milliseconds = Reckless Play
It's probably a 7 and a half on the 1 to 10 scale, with 9 and 10 being SFP, so the ref got it wrong for me. The slo-mo scissoring thing on this occasion is a function of having two legs rather than one and has nought to do with scissors

While we have to be very careful about slow-mo, saying it has zero value is an exaggeration. Slow-mo can't be used to judge severity of force, but it can be useful to see where contact occurs. I think the R has a better angle to judge that contact by the second leg and the level of force there.
 
I had a very similar tackle last weekend and went yellow. It was right in front of the away bench and they were horrified when I cautioned their player because he won the ball, but his other leg caught the opponent. I didn't think the contact with the second leg was enough to justify UEF but it definitely needed dealing with. He got a yellow and a serious b*****king, and all the players thought that was excessive. I only had the one view and thought yellow straight away - I'm with Rusty on this because on first view it doesn't look that bad because although the leg is straight it's nowhere near the opponent. In an incident like this you tend to watch the front leg because that's the one that's most likely to really do damage. It's easy to miss the following leg which can also hurt if it catches the player wrong. It would have been interesting if I'd had a slo-mo replay to fall back on! The only thing in his favour was that with the leg bent and not straight at the opponent it isn't as likely to cause serious injury, although it would still hurt. Red can easily be justified.

As One and socal lurker have said, it's at least a yellow - I think it's the definitive orange card. The context is incredibly important in incidents like this, because if the tempo is raised this is the type of challenge which can lose you a game, so needs to be dealt with more firmly in feistier games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Back
Top