The Ref Stop

Feyenoord Goalkeeper

P

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Interesting clip.


Surely that should be a red for the red player?

Also, in theory, could you not play advantage, only HAVE to stop play if the 2nd ball "interferes", and then go back and caution GK.

I suppose you would have to be very quick to tell thrower to just carry on?
 
The Ref Stop
No chance, don't see how you could describe that action as having used excessive force or brutality. Even if it had hit him on the legs I wouldn't be sending off for that, would have needed to have hit him in the upper body or head to have me interested. Simple caution for adopting an aggressive attitude for me.

Can't play advantage as when the keeper commits the offence play is already stopped.
 
RustyRef said:
No chance, don't see how you could describe that action as having used excessive force or brutality. Even if it had hit him on the legs I wouldn't be sending off for that, would have needed to have hit him in the upper body or head to have me interested. Simple caution for adopting an aggressive attitude for me.

Can't play advantage as when the keeper commits the offence play is already stopped.
Click to expand...
Interesting - brutality no, but excessive force, think you could argue it was. Genuine question - you're using the same criteria for an object or the ball being thrown as a punch, honestly hadn't thought of it that way - is that 'official training guidance' - if I can put it that way?

"Advantage" that was my clumsy use of language - could you not just shout play on (if time allowed) to let thrower know you had not stopped the game?
 
PinnerPaul said:
Interesting - brutality no, but excessive force, think you could argue it was. Genuine question - you're using the same criteria for an object or the ball being thrown as a punch, honestly hadn't thought of it that way - is that 'official training guidance' - if I can put it that way?

"Advantage" that was my clumsy use of language - could you not just shout play on (if time allowed) to let thrower know you had not stopped the game?
Click to expand...
I'm just using the definition of violent conduct, as that is what you would be sending him off for. I don't see that as being even close to violent, it was just a petulant act that had zero chance of hurting the opponent.

Just don't see how you could let play restart when you are about to caution the keeper and everyone can see there are two balls in close proximity. Playing on when a second ball enters the pitch is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way, but allowing play to restart knowing there is another ball on the pitch just can't be done.
 
In instances like this where the keeper fully deserves a slap I'd be extremely reluctant to go yellow for the initial offence and then red for the reaction. Would need to be crystal clear violent conduct.
 
RustyRef said:
No chance, don't see how you could describe that action as having used excessive force or brutality. Even if it had hit him on the legs I wouldn't be sending off for that, would have needed to have hit him in the upper body or head to have me interested. Simple caution for adopting an aggressive attitude for me.

Can't play advantage as when the keeper commits the offence play is already stopped.
Click to expand...

So devils advocate... Are we saying that we are basing our sanction on the players accuracy?
So if he throws the ball and he misses or hits the opponents leg it's yellow, but if he throws the ball with equal force and it hits him in the head it's a red?

The relevant law says:
Offences where an object (or the ball) is thrown
In all cases, the referee takes the appropriate disciplinary action:
• reckless – caution the offender for unsporting behaviour
• using excessive force – send off the offender for violent conduct

If the ball is thrown with equal force in both scenario (miss/hit) how does that change the above??
 
JamesL said:
So devils advocate... Are we saying that we are basing our sanction on the players accuracy?
So if he throws the ball and he misses or hits the opponents leg it's yellow, but if he throws the ball with equal force and it hits him in the head it's a red?

The relevant law says:
Offences where an object (or the ball) is thrown
In all cases, the referee takes the appropriate disciplinary action:
• reckless – caution the offender for unsporting behaviour
• using excessive force – send off the offender for violent conduct

If the ball is thrown with equal force in both scenario (miss/hit) how does that change the above??
Click to expand...
That ties in with the definition of VC. If you feel it uses excessive force then you can of course send off, but I'm really struggling to see how this used excessive force, or indeed any force at all. A referee sending off for that would be ridiculed, especially in the senior game. Had the ball hit the keeper in the head, which given he threw it at the ground would be nigh on impossible, it would be much more credible to go with a red card.

Call it spirit of the game or what the game expects, but I just don't think a red card would be expected or supported.
 
JamesL said:
So devils advocate... Are we saying that we are basing our sanction on the players accuracy?
So if he throws the ball and he misses or hits the opponents leg it's yellow, but if he throws the ball with equal force and it hits him in the head it's a red?

The relevant law says:
Offences where an object (or the ball) is thrown
In all cases, the referee takes the appropriate disciplinary action:
• reckless – caution the offender for unsporting behaviour
• using excessive force – send off the offender for violent conduct

If the ball is thrown with equal force in both scenario (miss/hit) how does that change the above??
Click to expand...

Accuracy? No. Consequence and outcome? Yes.

Semantics I know, but you’re playing my game here so…
 
Ok, so no way do I think that the player throwing the ball should be seeing red, but for those of you that are …
….. could/should the keeper not therefore be red carded for a DOGSO offence?
 
Could is correct, definitely an argument for it and needs considering...but don't think so in this instance
 
RefJef said:
Ok, so no way do I think that the player throwing the ball should be seeing red, but for those of you that are …
….. could/should the keeper not therefore be red carded for a DOGSO offence?
Click to expand...
The ball was out of play when he committed the offence. For DOGSO the offence has to be punishable by a free kick, there's no chance of a free kick here so cannot be DOGSO.
 
Tealeaf said:
Accuracy? No. Consequence and outcome? Yes.

Semantics I know, but you’re playing my game here so…
Click to expand...
How does the outcome change the force used??

Fwiw I think this is a yellow card... But genuinely interested to see why people see the outcome as a differential in the force used.
 
Kes said:
Not at all.
Be a difficult sell but 2 x YC in quick succession wouldn't be incorrect in law would it?
What does the book say?
Click to expand...
I was merely making a joke out of the wording "just throwing it out there"... Took it as "pun intended"....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top