Could it be argued from a players perspective there was good reason to do it, therefore its not a red? This is definitely not black and white. I can see both sides and a very tough decision it would be in real time.
50-50 ref! (Tottenham - Cardiff RC)
- Thread starter CapnBloodbeard
- Start date
Could it be argued from a players perspective there was good reason to do it, therefore its not a red? This is definitely not black and white. I can see both sides and a very tough decision it would be in real time.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Reckless Challenge
Serious Foul Play
Violent Conduct
A question for those who are arguing that this should have been a yellow, what if the Spurs play was stood still and the Cardiff player ran past and kicked him in the same manner?
Would you give a red card then, and if not why not?
Serious Foul Play
Violent Conduct
A question for those who are arguing that this should have been a yellow, what if the Spurs play was stood still and the Cardiff player ran past and kicked him in the same manner?
Would you give a red card then, and if not why not?
That changes the dynamic significantly.
If in your scenario a player is stood still and he is kicked by an opponent, for no reason then this becomes a textbook definition of brutality, an act that is deliberately violent.
Lets also not pretend that this is a kick, as it isnt, its a trip. He'd look a bit silly trying to trip up a player that was stood still.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Ok, lets change it up, what if the exact same challenge happened in the same area of the pitch but the ball was with another player on the opposite side of the pitch?
So what you're trying to do is take a context-dependant decision, remove or change the context and then ask what decision you would make?
The reason I think this is a yellow card is because of the context. The attacker is going to be the first player to the ball and in a dangerous position when he does so, so it's a foul that's been carried out for tactical reasons - textbook SPA when you describe it that way, it only gets more complicated when people start introducing arbitrary rules about how close to the ball the player must be.
But for the sake of entertaining the argument - as I've said before, if this tackle is made in a genuine attempt for the ball, I think it's a foul only. And obviously randomly lunging at a players legs where there's no tactical relevance could easily be red (although I'd still suggest the contact is so minimal that I wouldn't argue with a yellow). But neither of those situations are particularly relevant because of the tactical context that this challenge was made in.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
If the ball was within playing distance I'd go with a yellow, simply because I think that the challenge is reckless, but doesn't meet the requirements for serious foul play.
But combining the distance they are from the ball, the speed they are moving, and the fact the Cardiff player looks over before he lunges in make this VC for me. How much force should we allow players to use when not challenging for the ball, and how far away does the ball need to be before we call these types of challenges what they are?
But combining the distance they are from the ball, the speed they are moving, and the fact the Cardiff player looks over before he lunges in make this VC for me. How much force should we allow players to use when not challenging for the ball, and how far away does the ball need to be before we call these types of challenges what they are?
That's an excellent question - and as soon as you show me a section of the LOTG that answers it, I'll happily concede defeat in this discussion. In the absence of a clear answer in the good book, I can't agree.
As I said to someone else before, if you think this is reckless I'm totally prepared to accept that as your subjective judgement even if I disagree personally. But given he's the "active attacker" and the tackle is clearly done for tactical reasons to prevent a dangerous situation, I think trying to draw parallels with a genuine off the ball incident is misleading. And I can't see any justification in the LOTG for using the "off the ball" logic for what is clearly a "sporting" incident.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I normally agree with you Graeme, but can't on this one. EVEN if the ball was in playing distance the force and height of the contact make it a red for me. The fact that as ball no where near means it HAS to endanger safety of the player - what other outcome is there as he can't possibly make contact with anything else? means its a red for me. I DO understand the logic of going with yellow but when you say earlier its not even reckless, then I'm going to have to disagree most strongly there!
If I was observing on this, be it at L7 or L4, I wouldn't be at all impressed if the referee cautioned for this. Even more so if it led to a loss of match control for the referee, which would be entirely possible if you cautioned for this.
It's a kick at a player nowhere near the ball, it has to be a red card.
It's a kick at a player nowhere near the ball, it has to be a red card.
How does the distance they are from the ball affect the risk to the player?
Red....... Next.....
There is no generally accepted definition of 'kick' which this fits. A kick is a strike with a foot. This defender has thrown himself in front of the attacker, leg outstretched, in order to bring him down. He doesn't 'strike' him and his feet make no contact. It's a trip.
How does their proximity to the ball affect the decision? The ball is much further away than is the case with most deliberate trips but the attacker is still going to get the ball first if he's not brought to ground. What law says or implies that if the ball is further away from the foul than X yards it should be considered violent?
The proximity to the ball matters because he hasn't made any attempt to play it. Kicking someone when the ball isn't playable isn't part of football, it is violent conduct.
Kicking somebody is violent conduct whether the ball is playable or not.
My point is that the proximity of the ball means it isn't a tackle, it is a kick off the ball.
And my point is that the proximity of the ball has no bearing on whether a challenge is a 'kick'.
A kick is a strike with the foot. It doesn't matter where the ball is.
The outcome is exactly what he was trying to achieve - he saw an opponent who was going to be first to the ball in a dangerous area, deliberately went to trip him and (in my opinion) although it looked a bit clumsy, that's essentially all he did.
If he stayed on his feet and clipped Lucas's ankles as he went past, I don't think we'd argue with yellow. If he grabbed hold of his shoulder and hauled him down then that's a yellow we've all given a hundred times. Even if he had both arms around his waist and rugby tackled him to the ground, I still think football only expects yellow in that location. So that's the reason I don't buy the "off the ball" argument, as in that case, why wouldn't you send a player off for pulling down an opponent in this situation if any contact is unecessary and therefore violent? That logic just doesn't follow through for me.
As I've said to others, I disagree, but if that's your reason for going red then I accept it's a subjective call and can't argue with this point.
But I don't buy the argument that the location of the ball turns what would normally be seen as a careless or reckless foul here into a red card. It's not an argument that is supported in law - and even if we do accept the argument that "any contact is unnecessary and therefore excessive" (which I think is a very very generous stretching of the words in the book), how can we judge the distance from the ball at which that may apply?