50-50 ref! (Tottenham - Cardiff RC)

[Big Cat]

I don't understand why i was shot down for defending Hayden's 'naughty' tackle (Mags v CCFC), yet this red is being ridiculed when the player was taken out at hip height
I accept that this incident has exposed a gap in the law, but there's no place on the FOP for this behaviour and the law needs to urgently clarify this
Red card in the spirit of the game to paper over the gap in law

 

[RustyRef]

If you want to sanction this as a caution in your game then fine, as a referee I'd advise against it and you certainly wouldn't want me observing you on that game. It is just common sense, and fully protected by law, he has realised the player has beaten him and taken him out with a bad challenge, a bad challenge made into a terrible challenge by the fact the ball was in the next postcode.

 

[markref]

Considering Colin was once a qualified referee I found his words desperate and laughable!

Do you think there’s any chance he could be persuaded to show us how easy it really is by “coming out of retirement” and actually doing a game? (Not one of these charity ones where no one puts a challenge in!) I’m sure we’d all pay to see that!
I have a problem with the “challenge” because the player is so far from the ball that he wouldn’t expect it so could easily be injured, especially with how the opponent jumps in to make sure he takes him out, so I don’t think a YC is enough. Hopefully the FA will agree.
I had an incident a few years ago, that really was a trip. A player got the ball, beat his marker and ran down the wing with it. He was ten yards ahead of the defender when a substitute off the field put his foot on the pitch and tripped him up to stop the attack. I sent him off for two cautions - entering the fop and unsporting behaviour for the foul! His team didn’t lose a player but at least they lost a sub and he left the sideline so I kept control. Otherwise it would have kicked off because the other team felt really aggrieved.

 

[Peter Grove]

If the ball was in playing distance, not one of you would be sending him.

As far as I'm concerned that's just not true. If the ball is on the ground (which it was) and a player scythes the opponent off virtually at the waist, I'm definitely at least considering a red card.

Just in case we're not clear on just how high this challenge was (and how far away the ball was):

People keep talking about this in terms of it being an innocuous tackle that if it was part of a challenge for the ball, would not be seen as anything out of the ordinary. I disagree - if the ball had been at Moura's feet and an opponent had totally ignored the ball and kicked him right across the upper thigh (as mentioned, almost at waist level) I think a red card would be a distinct possibility (even if not a nailed-on certainty).

Lets also not pretend that this is a kick, as it isn't, its a trip. He'd look a bit silly trying to trip up a player that was stood still.

Sorry, that's not a trip for me. A trip is when you just clip the player's foot or catch them relatively gently somewhere on the lower leg. This is a player being taken off at the waist (or as near as damn it).

Please note - I'm still not saying this is an absolutely, totally definite red card but I think it's more red than yellow and could easily have been a red even if it was on the ball.

 

[spuddy1878]

I cant believe this has got to five pages, nailed on 100% red card.

Oh and you dont trip someone around the thigh area.

 

[GraemeS]

As far as I'm concerned that's just not true. If the ball is on the ground (which it was) and a player scythes the opponent off virtually at the waist, I'm definitely at least considering a red card.

Just in case we're not clear on just how high this challenge was (and how far away the ball was):View attachment 2550

People keep talking about this in terms of it being an innocuous tackle that if it was part of a challenge for the ball, would not be seen as anything out of the ordinary. I disagree - if the ball had been at Moura's feet and an opponent had totally ignored the ball and kicked him right across the upper thigh (as mentioned, almost at waist level) I think a red card would be a distinct possibility (even if not a nailed-on certainty).

Sorry, that's not a trip for me. A trip is when you just clip the player's foot or catch them relatively gently somewhere on the lower leg. This is a player being taken off at the waist (or as near as damn it).

Please note - I'm still not saying this is an absolutely, totally definite red card but I think it's more red than yellow and could easily have been a red even if it was on the ball.

We all know stills are misleading - if you watch the video, the defenders leg goes across in front of the attacker, his studs are in a slightly risky position but don't make contact with the attacker, and it's the tangle of legs that takes Lucas down rather than any force or impact. That's why I keep using the word "trip" and don't think "kick" is an accurate description.

 

[Abeverley]

We all know stills are misleading - if you watch the video, the defenders leg goes across in front of the attacker, his studs are in a slightly risky position but don't make contact with the attacker, and it's the tangle of legs that takes Lucas down rather than any force or impact. That's why I keep using the word "trip" and don't think "kick" is an accurate description.

I agree with you on this one for sure.

Can understand red card if ref thought it was violent conduct etc but for me it’s yellow for SPA.
Defo not a kick. Just a moronic challenge that invited the red card rather than a shirt pull or something. The defenders decision making needs questioning, not the ref’s.

I don’t think he can have any complaints about the red card. Not exactly sure what angle the ref was at but it’s down to his interpretation in that moment.

 

[QuaverRef]

We all know stills are misleading - if you watch the video, the defenders leg goes across in front of the attacker, his studs are in a slightly risky position but don't make contact with the attacker, and it's the tangle of legs that takes Lucas down rather than any force or impact. That's why I keep using the word "trip" and don't think "kick" is an accurate description.

Although stills are misleading, this clearly shows the player off the ground with his leg across the players thigh with studs showing, there's all sorts of issues here and easily falls into the category of SFP when challenging for the ball. He's not even doing that here .... grab his shirt, tap his ankles ... but this? There's no way it can just be considered 'a trip'

 

[Big Cat]

I understand the appeal has been rejected
According to Wales Online
That settles it for me (yet my leniency towards SFP and VC is usually quite evident!)

 

[JH]

As far as I'm concerned that's just not true. If the ball is on the ground (which it was) and a player scythes the opponent off virtually at the waist, I'm definitely at least considering a red card.

Just in case we're not clear on just how high this challenge was (and how far away the ball was):View attachment 2550

People keep talking about this in terms of it being an innocuous tackle that if it was part of a challenge for the ball, would not be seen as anything out of the ordinary. I disagree - if the ball had been at Moura's feet and an opponent had totally ignored the ball and kicked him right across the upper thigh (as mentioned, almost at waist level) I think a red card would be a distinct possibility (even if not a nailed-on certainty).

Sorry, that's not a trip for me. A trip is when you just clip the player's foot or catch them relatively gently somewhere on the lower leg. This is a player being taken off at the waist (or as near as damn it).

Please note - I'm still not saying this is an absolutely, totally definite red card but I think it's more red than yellow and could easily have been a red even if it was on the ball.

Have a look at the contact, where is it? Thigh to thigh, studs nowhere near. He makes sure he stops Moura's progress, very unconventionally. For me, he acts with disregard to the danger to his opponent 100%, which is why I would give a yellow card. It doesn't rise to SFP or violent conduct in my opinion. (I don't think it is a 'trip' as others have said)

When I saw the tackle at full speed I thought 'thats a bad challenge' but the first thing that came to mind was - why is it a red (in terms of law) and some of the posts in this thread justifying red have just given ridiculous reasons.

At the end of the day it's 'in the opinion of the referee'. I understand and respect how people view this as a red card but disagree with how some have come to that conclusion.

 

[JH]

a bad challenge made into a terrible challenge by the fact the ball was in the next postcode.

This is the problem I have, where is this in law? What is the cut off point? If the ball is 2 yards closer is it just a 'bad challenge' then, yellow card?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

This is the problem I have, where is this in law? What is the cut off point? If the ball is 2 yards closer is it just a 'bad challenge' then, yellow card?

1) Theres precedent in that law with regards to an off-the-ball contact to the head or face being a red unless it's negligible
2) Why does it have to be in the law anyway? I think people are forgetting that we can use our understanding of the game itself...

 

[GraemeS]

1) Theres precedent in that law with regards to an off-the-ball contact to the head or face being a red unless it's negligible
2) Why does it have to be in the law anyway? I think people are forgetting that we can use our understanding of the game itself...

1) But there's no precedent in the law describing a challenge carried out for tactical reasons as "off-the-ball" - that's the bit where I think people in this thread are stretching.
2) And my understanding of the game tells me why this tackle was carried out (for tactical reasons) and that's why I class it as SPA. I don't think it's fair to suggest people who aren't advocating red don't understand football. If anything, I'd argue the opposite...

 

[RustyRef]

1) But there's no precedent in the law describing a challenge carried out for tactical reasons as "off-the-ball" - that's the bit where I think people in this thread are stretching.
2) And my understanding of the game tells me why this tackle was carried out (for tactical reasons) and that's why I class it as SPA. I don't think it's fair to suggest people who aren't advocating red don't understand football. If anything, I'd argue the opposite...

You refer to it as a tackle, but it wasn't as you can't tackle for the ball when it is so far away. Tackle is defined in law as ...

A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)

There this cannot be classed as a tackle as he clearly wasn't making any intention of getting the ball, and it therefore falls under kicking an opponent and violent conduct.

 

[JamesL]

You refer to it as a tackle, but it wasn't as you can't tackle for the ball when it is so far away. Tackle is defined in law as ...

A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)

There this cannot be classed as a tackle as he clearly wasn't making any intention of getting the ball, and it therefore falls under kicking an opponent and violent conduct.

Correct on one count. However, only on the basis that this was referred to as a tackle.

Law 12 makes no mention of the ball. Just "challenges an opponent" a list of possible offences, e.g. kick, and then the determinations of CRUEF.

Have to accept that this maybe should have been a red given the appeal was rejected however I still struggle with the consistency between this and other challenges overturned before it.. what we cant do is say that he kicked his opponenet, as that simply isnt the case because to kick his opponenet he would have to have made direct contact with the foot / ankle with the player which doesnt happen.

 

[RustyRef]

Correct on one count. However, only on the basis that this was referred to as a tackle.

Law 12 makes no mention of the ball. Just "challenges an opponent" a list of possible offences, e.g. kick, and then the determinations of CRUEF.

Have to accept that this maybe should have been a red given the appeal was rejected however I still struggle with the consistency between this and other challenges overturned before it.. what we cant do is say that he kicked his opponenet, as that simply isnt the case because to kick his opponenet he would have to have made direct contact with the foot / ankle with the player which doesnt happen.

Forget about what happens at an appeal, there have been plenty of times where all referees have been left baffled by the appeal outcome. Seems to be better recently, but in the past there have been cases where the ex-player perspective has clearly shown through in appeal decisions.

Given that the offence is tackles or challenges an opponent, and it is on the same bullet point, plus there is no definition of challenge (yet there is for charge, impede, etc, I would say that FIFA class tackle and challenge as one and the same thing.