50-50 ref! (Tottenham - Cardiff RC)

[Hoosier Ref]

I would say VC and rather than deeming it a trip, I could go for "striking" the other player. He has done it deliberately using his body and legs rather than using an arm, There is no chance of playing the ball. Clear intent to strike the player and bring him down stopping the attack.. VC. Now for those asking why not a YC, I would ask if this was 20 yards farther away from the ball or say 50 for that matter, would you say YC then? If he simply kicked him, rather than throwing his whole body, would you say YC? Combine the two hypotheticals.... if this was 50 yards away and a player turned and kicked another player RC or YC? I feel the fundamentals are the same. A player has deliberately struck another player throwing his body into him and is in no way a challenge for a ball. This is a RC for VC all day in my book

 

[cwyeary]

We have no problem sending a player off for a tiny little kick out when the ball is gone. Why should this be any different when a player deliberately kicks an opponent while not trying to play ball. This is violent conduct.

 

[one]

I think it's the tactical nurture of the foul that is confusing the issue giving the impression it's only meant to stop an attack and hence masking the violent nature of it. As @Hoosier Ref pointed out, if this was done completely in back play, no referee would have a problem with a send off for VC.

 

[JamesL]

I have to say I agree with @Trip. We've had this before, xhaka and was it Shelvey? Both red cards were over turned, were they not. I am expecting this one to be too.
I personally don't see where the laws state that because the ball is not in playing distance any force becomes excessive.
I struggle to attach violent to this foul. It cant be SFP as it isnt a challenge for the ball but has he endangered his opponents safety, I dont think so..has he acted without regard for his opponents safety, yes.. happy to have my opinion changed but yet to see anything in law that really supports a red card

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I have to say I agree with @Trip. We've had this before, xhaka and was it Shelvey? Both red cards were over turned, were they not. I am expecting this one to be too.
I personally don't see where the laws state that because the ball is not in playing distance any force becomes excessive.
I struggle to attach violent to this foul. It cant be SFP as it isnt a challenge for the ball but has he endangered his opponents safety, I dont think so..has he acted without regard for his opponents safety, yes.. happy to have my opinion changed but yet to see anything in law that really supports a red card

Doesn't need to be endangering the safety to be a red card, Endangering safety is only for SFP, which definitely can't apply here.

Violent conduct
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or
brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a
team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person,
regardless of whether contact is made

If you don't think a flying slide kick on somebody who is simply running is not excessive, then I can't help you....

 

[GraemeS]

I think it's the tactical nurture of the foul that is confusing the issue giving the impression it's only meant to stop an attack and hence masking the violent nature of it. As @Hoosier Ref pointed out, if this was done completely in back play, no referee would have a problem with a send off for VC.

Disagree 100%. The amount of force here is absolutely tiny - it's more a trip than a kick and wouldn't have even received yellow if it had happened in a genuine attempt for the ball. And it's clearly not been done for "violent reasons", so I think the "you'd send him off anywhere else on the pitch" argument is a bit of a red herring as well.

The ONLY reason this deserves anything more than a FK is because of the tactical implications. And if he'd pulled him down rather than kicking/tripping, no one would want any more than a yellow. Especially if the almost-identical Xhaka red was overturned, I think this has to be as well.

 

[JamesL]

flying slide kick

That's an exaggeration. It's a tactical foul. As Graeme says if ball is in playing distance no one bats an eyelid.
What you are saying is that any foul on the player here should be a red card which is just not true. IMO this is a trip. And warrants a YC for the reckless nature of the challenge.
If he had directly kicked his opponent I might agree but he has moved his leg into his opponents path causing him to trip.
I will never buy this any force when not challenging for the ball is a red card. The laws dont support it. If they did, it's very easy to be explicit and we'll see lots more red cards for pushing, players going head to head, because hey, no ball, its excessive.
I get the principle, it makes sense but there's no intention for it in the framework of the laws.
Although, if you see a flying side kick, fine, red card

 

[Russell Jones]

Really interesting debate. Can see both sides of the argument, though, to be clear, I lean towards a red for this.

What can we all agree on here? CRUEF in totality doesn't come into our thinking as this is patently NOT a challenge for the ball. So we're back into the debate as to what constitutes excessive force or brutality with regard to Violent Conduct. Some referees will happily send off for a 'Beckham like' kick out (not me incidentally, gave a yellow for something a bit similar on Saturday .. player was still off two minutes later though ). Others are relaxed about giving a Yellow for a vigorous shove in the chest.

You can obviously hold a logical position that ANY off the ball aggression is 'Excessive'. But I don't think this is the accepted norm. For me, the clue is in the name, VIOLENT conduct. And violent is 'using force to hurt'. So, tactically dragging a player to the ground can be seen as non violent whereas a trip or a kick for the same purpose can (if done hard enough) be seen as violent. IMO, the trip in this case was an unnecessarily violent way of achieving his aim of stopping the player ... hence Red.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

That's an exaggeration. It's a tactical foul. As Graeme says if ball is in playing distance no one bats an eyelid.
What you are saying is that any foul on the player here should be a red card which is just not true. IMO this is a trip. And warrants a YC for the reckless nature of the challenge.
If he had directly kicked his opponent I might agree but he has moved his leg into his opponents path causing him to trip.
I will never buy this any force when not challenging for the ball is a red card. The laws dont support it. If they did, it's very easy to be explicit and we'll see lots more red cards for pushing, players going head to head, because hey, no ball, its excessive.
I get the principle, it makes sense but there's no intention for it in the framework of the laws.
Although, if you see a flying side kick, fine, red card

exaggeration? If it was near the ball you'd call it an aerial slide tackle. It's not. So it's not a tackle.

And don't put words into my mouth. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when something like this is off the ball, the fact that there isn't a pretence of playing the ball makes it worse. I find it weird that you don't think something off the ball is worse than something on the ball.

Really interesting debate. Can see both sides of the argument, though, to be clear, I lean towards a red for this.

What can we all agree on here? CRUEF in totality doesn't come into our thinking as this is patently NOT a challenge for the ball. So we're back into the debate as to what constitutes excessive force or brutality with regard to Violent Conduct. Some referees will happily send off for a 'Beckham like' kick out (not me incidentally, gave a yellow for something a bit similar on Saturday .. player was still off two minutes later though ). Others are relaxed about giving a Yellow for a vigorous shove in the chest.

You can obviously hold a logical position that ANY off the ball aggression is 'Excessive'. But I don't think this is the accepted norm. For me, the clue is in the name, VIOLENT conduct. And violent is 'using force to hurt'. So, tactically dragging a player to the ground can be seen as non violent whereas a trip or a kick for the same purpose can (if done hard enough) be seen as violent. IMO, the trip in this case was an unnecessarily violent way of achieving his aim of stopping the player ... hence Red.

that's not what the LOTG say. You're applying a disserent definition to what FIFA are supplying.

However, you're also wrong about CRUEF. Tripping and kicking is under CRUEF, whether it's on or off the ball. But if it's off the ball, the bar for exessive force has to be lower.

 

[JamesL]

exaggeration? If it was near the ball you'd call it an aerial slide tackle. It's not. So it's not a tackle.

And don't put words into my mouth. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when something like this is off the ball, the fact that there isn't a pretence of playing the ball makes it worse. I find it weird that you don't think something off the ball is worse than something on the ball.

that's not what the LOTG say. You're applying a disserent definition to what FIFA are supplying.

However, you're also wrong about CRUEF. Tripping and kicking is under CRUEF, whether it's on or off the ball. But if it's off the ball, the bar for exessive force has to be lower.

I just dont see the flying part if I am honest. His right leg remains on the floor until the point it naturally has to come.under him. Apoligies I read side kick, not slide.. but in any event I cant see this as a kick. Its a trip. Its completely cynical but excessive I just dont see
Agree that Law 12 makes no mention of the ball for CRUEF, its when challenging an opponent. The ball comes into play for SFP.
I do think off the ball is worse than on the ball but I dont think it makes much difference in this instance. The defender wants to prevent the progress of the opponent. Whether the ball is 1 yard or 6 yards he is going to commit this foul. I dont think the ball changes much, in this particular clip..
sorry not putting words in your mouth. I am quoting what has been said in this thread, and others too..

 

[Abeverley]

I don’t see a red card here.
It’s a stupid tackle but he doesn’t really endanger the oponant and doesn’t really strike him, more trips him.
Certainly a yellow for me for breaking up promising attack.

 

[Abeverley]

Further to that. With Violent conduct there surely has to be intent? The intent to hurt someone. This is a stupid professional foul but to suggest he was trying to hurt him I think is a stretch.

 

[Nalbi]

Further to that. With Violent conduct there surely has to be intent? The intent to hurt someone. This is a stupid professional foul but to suggest he was trying to hurt him I think is a stretch.

No, don’t fall into that trap! There is nothing in the laws about intent! Solely the use of excessive force or brutality. BecUse while you might guess the intent, you can’t and are not expected to judge intent!

 

[PinnerPaul]

The consensus here seems to be that if a defender has no chance of making contact with the ball a deliberate foul which brings the attacking player down is a red card.

I can't really see how this is different from a 'normal' professional foul other than the fact that the ball is absolutely miles out of reach rather than just a bit out of reach. Surely that factor alone isn't the difference between a caution and a dismissal?

If the laws say we can dismiss a player for a deliberate and obvious trip - which this certainly is - then I'm all for it, but I don't think they do.

'Excessive force and/or endangering safety of opponent'- hard to argue both don't apply in this case.

 

[GraemeS]

'Excessive force and/or endangering safety of opponent'- hard to argue both don't apply in this case.

Excessive force only applies if you buy the "any contact off the ball is excessive" argument, which I'm not sure is supported in the laws and is a whole other debate. As I said in my first post in this thread, that would be very simple to write into the LOTG - but it's not explicitly there. Which combined with the Xhaka red being overturned, suggests the laws don't support that.

And endangering the safety? Not for me - again, I think this tackle in a genuine attempt for the ball doesn't even get a yellow. It's hard to argue that it's more dangerous simply because the ball isn't within a yard of the tackle.

 

[GraemeS]

No, don’t fall into that trap! There is nothing in the laws about intent! Solely the use of excessive force or brutality. BecUse while you might guess the intent, you can’t and are not expected to judge intent!

Exactly. Intent can be one of many reasons to give red for VC/SFP, but is not required to do so.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Further to that. With Violent conduct there surely has to be intent? The intent to hurt someone. This is a stupid professional foul but to suggest he was trying to hurt him I think is a stretch.

Intent to hurt somebody? Not at all.
Even FIFA agree that things off the ball are worse. remember, there's no almost zero tolerance on off-the-ball contact to the head or face.

Doesn't have to be intent to hurt (which is not supported in the law), doesn't even have to be hard. FIFA's view is basically that because there's no good reason to do it, that immediately upgrades it to 'excessive'.

 

[Trip]

The same amount of force when not challenging for the ball is considered excessive .

This is exactly what I mean - it's actually NOT considered excessive most of the time. It's commonly known as a "professional foul" - bringing a player down to prevent an attack when you have no chance of getting the ball - and usually results in a caution.

The only difference in this case is that the ball much further out of reach than most professional fouls. How far away does the ball have to be for the same action to be a dismissal instead of a caution?

 

[Big Cat]

Like i said earlier, the Law does not adequately deal with this common scenario, so i can see both sides. Excessive Force associated with SFP is the closest match imo, even though it's technically not SFP

 

[JamesL]

FIFA's view is basically that because there's no good reason to do it, that immediately upgrades it to 'excessive'.

Do you have a reference for that statement? Personally have never seen anything to suggest that is the case.