Dortmund vs Ajax
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
Anubis
RefChat Addict
if you leave the ground with both feet, you are halfway to red,
Making no contact with the ball with either of the feet seals it
Clearly the ref team last night are red, am red, and as ever, if someone else in their game opts yellow, or even no card, thats the beauty ( or horror!) of refereeing
i dont think contacting the ball or not has any consideration in this tbh and shouldnt be part of the decision making process
if you consider it an SFP tackle then the ball is irrelevant
Anubis
RefChat Addict
scroll up, where I respectfully tried to explain top flight referee thought process.
again, this coaching may or may not be different in different regions/abilities/level of referee
airbourne, two feet off ground, out of control. ( by being airbourne, you are out of control unless you are Clark Kent or Magneto) and being out of control you are endangering the opponent. Any challenge which endangers ( not, does it actuallly cause harm to, but, endangers) You are nearly red
Not making contact with the ball whilst doing the above, red.
i simply dont agree, top flight or otherwise i dont think this meets the threshold for an SFP challenge
might as well leave it there as nothing you can say or vice versa will change our views
I'm not a moderator here, but whether intentional or not, your response to other posters very rarely comes across as respectful.
Correct.
Wrong.
The second half of the equation isn't "not getting the ball" because as @one correctly pointed out on the previous page, that would imply that a player doing this 10 yards away should be sent off. Or a player leaving the ground in order to jump for a high ball etc. There has to be more to the consideration before going red - and that additional step is the bit in the laws where is says "endangering the safety of the opponent".
In this case, the fact that the lunge is intended as a block, plus the fact he's on the ground long before the opponent (as evidenced by the fact that he's stepped on by the opponent as part of the challenge) should be enough for us to immediately dismiss SFP and move on to deciding what other lesser punishment needs to be applied and to who.
ReallyRef?
Member
It's quite disappointing to see quite a few people here saying that is a red card, especially after having the proof on video...
If there should be a card, it's for Ajax's player for simulation.
Next, the referee says no penalty in the 35+min...
VAR says penalty...
I believe the red card decision was already haunting M.O. and kind of lost it from there...
In an amateur game, I wouldn't be surprised if making a decision like that one, that has seen Hummels sent off wouldn't result in violent conduct against the ref...
Also, it would be interesting to see the assistant's reaction when the incident happened. Did he flagged?
And still believe there can be an appeal against that red card and easily downgraded to a yellow or not even a yellow.
If there should be a card, it's for Ajax's player for simulation.
Next, the referee says no penalty in the 35+min...
VAR says penalty...
I believe the red card decision was already haunting M.O. and kind of lost it from there...
In an amateur game, I wouldn't be surprised if making a decision like that one, that has seen Hummels sent off wouldn't result in violent conduct against the ref...
Also, it would be interesting to see the assistant's reaction when the incident happened. Did he flagged?
And still believe there can be an appeal against that red card and easily downgraded to a yellow or not even a yellow.
Last edited:
Again, here you've made the same incorrect logical leap. Being out of control is step 1 of the thought process, but is not intrinsically dangerous to an opponent. We have to consider where the opponent is in relation to the player who's out of control, and also at what point the player regains some control of their movement.
It's logically impossible for a lunge to endanger someone if there is no one in the vicinity of the lunge who can be in danger. Just because you've ticked off the first point on a checklist, doesn't entitle you to immediately assume the rest of the requirements are also automatically ticked.
And as a side note, you also need to stop thinking in terms of "contact with the ball" - that's outdated thinking and if you have received coaching any time in the last 20 years, they should have been coaching you away from that line of thinking. Making contact with the ball doesn't suddenly make a dangerous challenge safe, and it's still entirely possible to be sent off for SFP even if you do get the ball.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
neither of the defenders feet go near the ball
nowhere have i said its black and white, make contact with the bal or else
i alluded to it being part of the thought process, dont play the ball. off
play the ball. maybe not off
he has been airbourne, both feet off ground, is out of control, PLUS makes no contact with the ball
other than with his back as a consolation
joe public park, nothimg to see here
elite official, red card
Ajax player has done him no favours here with the reaction, that’s a given.
However, we’ve talked before on here about how the bar is lowered in European competitions with a more “continental” style adopted by UK officials. I think that’s in play here.
I’m sympathetic to the argument for red, especially if the magic words “excessive force” were used during the referee - VAR discussion. That falls outside the C&O criteria because it’s subjective.
I honestly think that’s the sole reason it hasn’t been overturned.
However, we’ve talked before on here about how the bar is lowered in European competitions with a more “continental” style adopted by UK officials. I think that’s in play here.
I’m sympathetic to the argument for red, especially if the magic words “excessive force” were used during the referee - VAR discussion. That falls outside the C&O criteria because it’s subjective.
I honestly think that’s the sole reason it hasn’t been overturned.
He’s lunged, there can’t be any argument about that. The only question remaining is whether it used excessive force or endangered the opponent. I would argue the latter does apply, as once you become airborne you have zero control of your body, where you land and what you land on is nothing more than pot luck.
had it been an incorrect red card VAR would have recommended a review. As Anubis has said, UEFA referees are told to crack down hard on lunges like this, hence why I am not at all surprised at the outcome.
had it been an incorrect red card VAR would have recommended a review. As Anubis has said, UEFA referees are told to crack down hard on lunges like this, hence why I am not at all surprised at the outcome.
Again, so what?
This is arguably a pointless discussion because your entire premise is off. Lunging + not making contact with the ball (as written by you in post #22) is not the be all and end off of SFP. Continuing to base further posts on that incorrect assumption is going to continue leading you to the incorrect answer.
SFP requires endangering the safety of the opponent. You can tell me "he lunged and didn't get the ball" as often as you like - if you can't also explain how in this particular instance that posed a danger to a player who was over a meter away at the point he regained contact with the ground, then you can't justify the red card.
VAR is not an infallible automoton. It's a person who is under pressure from multiple directions - pressure from his colleague on the pitch to support their call, pressure from broadcasters and media to make the call quickly and pressure from their own superiors to enact various directives and teachings that we're not privy to.
I kind of understand how an on-field official could make this incorrect call - the play has moved in an unexpected direction thanks to various flicks and players being pulled out of position, so it's entirely possible he was unsighted at the key moment. But VAR should have helped him out and clarified that the lunge was carried out a safe distance away from the opponent and contact was minimal.
It doesn’t matter. In a UEFA game if you lunge and make any contact with the opponent, no matter how minimal, you are likely to be walking. It wasn’t a wrong decision and referee and VAR will be fully backed by the observer because it is what UEFA expects.
one
RefChat Addict
The more I look at the replay the more I think it should not have been red. I know stills don't tell the whole story but they can show the point of contact and also show other things like he is well on the ground and in control at the point of contact. It also shows the slide was in front of the opponent as at the point of contact his tackling foot has already gone past the opponent.
bester
RefChat Addict
Where you land isn't pot luck, it's just simple physics which a pro athlete will have an intuitive understanding of through repetition.
He didn't make contact with the opponent during the lunge. They were sequential events - he lunged, landed and then as in the picture posted above, contacted the opponent in the form of the opponent standing on his outstretched leg that was clearly on the ground.
Again, I'm not arguing it's a clean tackle. I'm arguing it was a careless foul - I'd also accept a yellow based on SPA if the context requires it, or even a red for the opponent if you chose to see that as a "stamp". But the only justification for red is based off an assumption that contact was made mid-lunge. Which is an understandable mistake for an unsighted official to make in real time, but which should have been corrected either by the AR on that side, or the VAR using a similar still to the one posted above.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Clear-cut caution for me. Hummels comes in from behind, but with his feet down. No way it's a red (and I say this as a big fan of Michael Oliver's).
I'm really confused why VAR did not recommend Oliver go to the monitor. I can only think that there was one slow-motion replay that appeared to show Hummels coming in with more of a lunge as opposed to being on the ground more. I saw this replay on the broadcast, and by itself it does seem to show a challenge that was more dangerous. But that replay was awfully misleading in my opinion.
It should have been an on field review. Had Oliver gone to the monitor, I think he would have correctly downgraded to a caution.
I'm really confused why VAR did not recommend Oliver go to the monitor. I can only think that there was one slow-motion replay that appeared to show Hummels coming in with more of a lunge as opposed to being on the ground more. I saw this replay on the broadcast, and by itself it does seem to show a challenge that was more dangerous. But that replay was awfully misleading in my opinion.
It should have been an on field review. Had Oliver gone to the monitor, I think he would have correctly downgraded to a caution.
