Adopting aggressive attitude

[Redref34]

Situation today.

Keeper from team A collects ball in hands, player from team B and keeper come together and the following happens:

Player Team B runs past keeper and gives him a little nudge there’s contact but not a huge amount - keeper from team A then kicks out slightly (more of a trip) at that player.

I booked keeper for AAA and had a word with player from team B.

Restarted with a free kick to goal keeper for initial contact from player B.

Observer said that I should have booked player B for AAA as well.

Do people agree? Could I have done anything different here?

The reason I didn’t book player B for AAA was because I didn’t think he did enough to warrant it, however I understand it would have helped to sell my decision to not award a penalty and send the keeper off for violent conduct.

Thanks

 

[Gabriel]

I reckon if player B started it, it would really help manage the game if you cautioned him as well, as it would sell the decision as you say at the end of your post. However, this is probably one of those where YHTBT. Sounds like you managed it quite well though!

 

[Redref34]

I suppose my question is, ultimately - is everything there correct in law.

 

[Gabriel]

I can't see anything there that's wrong in law so everything must be correct.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

The decisions are based on the referee's opinion. A caution for unsporting behaviour would have made the restart an easier "sell", as has been said.
Law says "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)"

 

[RustyRef]

Generally speaking if there is a confrontation between two players you really want a caution for each. There's no right and wrong answer, but it is a difficult message to sell if you are cautioning the keeper and then giving his team the free kick, even more so if there is no sanction for the opponent that you have penalised to award the free kick.

 

[Redref34]

Generally speaking if there is a confrontation between two players you really want a caution for each. There's no right and wrong answer, but it is a difficult message to sell if you are cautioning the keeper and then giving his team the free kick, even more so if there is no sanction for the opponent that you have penalised to award the free kick.

Understood and that’s what I thought.

I did, having dealt with the goalkeeper first, then publicly call the other offender to warn him that his conduct was not acceptable, I should have cautioned him. The players understood - I feel like everyone was obviously focussing on the kick as some thought it may have been VC - to then book the other offender could have gone the other way and got people saying why has he been booked for being kicked essentially - so that was what was in my head at the time.

 

[JamesL]

Generally, there is no smoke without fire. It's rare for someone to just kick someone unprovoked.

Forget second guessing. As rusty said if 2 olayers are confronting each other then they are both getting a caution. An action/behaviour that causes a reaction from an opponent is unsporting by nature and I think everyone expects 2 cautions in these situations

 

[OIREF!]

Some years ago I had an incident that started in a similar way to that described in the OP. Only minor contact from both players but unfortunately in my case it escalated into a difficult situation. I learned a lot from it and now tend to react to any unnecessary contact on the goalkeeper with ball in hand - damage limitation I suppose?

 

[The Gump]

Generally, there is no smoke without fire. It's rare for someone to just kick someone unprovoked.

Forget second guessing. As rusty said if 2 olayers are confronting each other then they are both getting a caution. An action/behaviour that causes a reaction from an opponent is unsporting by nature and I think everyone expects 2 cautions in these situations

Had something similar earlier this year. Ball in far corner so I'm about 20 yards away near the corner of the penalty area. Hear shouting from behind that might have been "Ref! Ref" but one team had a player whose name when shouted from the bench sounded like 'ref' (honestly!) so didn't look round immediately. Calls continued so looked round and saw the tail end of what was a at worst a thrown punch that missed or simply a flailing arm/push from an attacked. Blow whistle and walk over with protests from the attacking team that their player had been headbutted by the defender (I'd not seen that).

I have to say my instinct was that I'd seen a thrown punch that didn't connect, but like James said I figured it had been provoked, so had a strong word with and cautioned both for AAA. It was probably the wrong decision in law which should have been RC for VC for the thrown punch, but I figured I'd potentially lose match control/credibility if that was the outcome.

No arguments from the cautioned players and no issues for the remainder of the game, so even if wrong in law I think it was the correct decision for the game.

 

[ICan'tSpeyk]

I'd generally try at all costs to give each player the same treatment unless its stinkingly obvious differences. 2 times in my first season i gave different outcomes to 2 players going at it. Both times resulted in a warzone.

 

[Viridis1886]

2 times in my first season i gave different outcomes to 2 players going at it. Both times resulted in a warzone

Did you do it the second time to check that you'd made a mistake the first time?!

If so, that is a pretty sound methodology, but I'd avoid increasing the number of replicates and end your data collection.