The Ref Stop

Atalanta v Dortmund

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

D

DJIC

RefChat Addict
Added time penalty, but any complaints?

youtube.com

✂️ PK?

60 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "DRAMATIC End In Bergamo 🍿 | Atalanta 4-1 Dortmund (4-3 AGG) | UEFA Champions League Highlights" by TNT Sports...
youtube.com youtube.com
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
Yes. It should have been a straight red for SFP not a second yellow.
Click to expand...
Agree. I think it was a total accident, but if you raise your foot that high and plant your studs in an opponent’s face it can only really be SFP.
 
I see this as a very marginal call. The defender's boot is at waist level. I'd argue that this height is one where you would expect players to be going with the boot or chest rather than the head. He plays the ball, there's no malice. I can see the argument that any subsequent contact with the attacker could be deemed to be reckless ... but for SFP, you have to argue that the defender should 'expect' the attacker to be heading it there.
 
Russell Jones said:
I see this as a very marginal call. The defender's boot is at waist level. I'd argue that this height is one where you would expect players to be going with the boot or chest rather than the head. He plays the ball, there's no malice. I can see the argument that any subsequent contact with the attacker could be deemed to be reckless ... but for SFP, you have to argue that the defender should 'expect' the attacker to be heading it there.
Click to expand...
Although changing the game, but the same topic, I was at a Contrib game last Saturday when a similar incident occurred just before half time close to/within the centre circle. Away goes to head the ball, whereas Home attempts to play it with a raised foot, but made contact with the Away player (head). Usual thing, a melee/congregation of players, but nothing ott. Player treated and could take no further part. Referee decides upon a yellow. My take was it could have gone either way. The ball bounced about waist high or a bit above. I was sitting next to members of the Away committee and they were ok with a caution (for reckless). It would have been harsh for me to say, incorrect in Law (& without the benefit of any footage at this level).
 
Russell Jones said:
I see this as a very marginal call. The defender's boot is at waist level. I'd argue that this height is one where you would expect players to be going with the boot or chest rather than the head. He plays the ball, there's no malice. I can see the argument that any subsequent contact with the attacker could be deemed to be reckless ... but for SFP, you have to argue that the defender should 'expect' the attacker to be heading it there.
Click to expand...
I can accept this argument if contact was with the laces of the defender instead of exposing his boot studs in an upward motion into an oppoent. Let's sat the attacker played the ball with his knee and not his head. And then the defender plants his studs on the attackers knee, albeit in an unconventional kicking motion. I'd still give SFP for that.
SFP is for endangering the safety of an opponent regardless of the body part.
 
one said:
I can accept this argument if contact was with the laces of the defender instead of exposing his boot studs in an upward motion into an oppoent. Let's sat the attacker played the ball with his knee and not his head. And then the defender plants his studs on the attackers knee, albeit in an unconventional kicking motion. I'd still give SFP for that.
SFP is for endangering the safety of an opponent regardless of the body part.
Click to expand...
That's a fair response. I guess, in reality, it would be judged on the level of force with which the studs made contact with the opponent. If they did indeed 'plant', as you put it, then fair enough. Alternatively, we've seen plenty of 'glancing blows' which have been deemed to be Reckless rather then SFP.

It's a good reminder that every challenge / contact is different. In the OP, both attacker and defender chose to do body movements that were more than a little out of the ordinary!
 
I believe a red card was the only option. The player’s safety was endangered and he got three to four bad cuts on his forehead from studs. He could have lost an eye from that raised boot.
 
  • Love
Reactions: one
I'm happy with a caution here - I don't think there's enough force used by the defender to deem it "excessive". Had the contact occurred at a greater height then I think a red would be more arguable.
 
ARF said:
I'm happy with a caution here - I don't think there's enough force used by the defender to deem it "excessive". Had the contact occurred at a greater height then I think a red would be more arguable.
Click to expand...
Excessive force is not a requirement for SFP when the opponent's safety is endangered.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Excessive force is not a requirement for SFP when the opponent's safety is endangered.
Click to expand...
The defender’s actions were reckless IMO, nothing more than that. I'd also argue that the only reason anyone's safety was endangered was the attacker attempting to head the ball at waist height, threatening injury to himself.
 
Russell Jones said:
That's a fair response. I guess, in reality, it would be judged on the level of force with which the studs made contact with the opponent. If they did indeed 'plant', as you put it, then fair enough. Alternatively, we've seen plenty of 'glancing blows' which have been deemed to be Reckless rather then SFP.

It's a good reminder that every challenge / contact is different. In the OP, both attacker and defender chose to do body movements that were more than a little out of the ordinary!
Click to expand...
Given he had blood pouring from his head and a couple of stud marks I suspect that had a big influence on the outcome.

I'm very much in the camp of not penalising accidental contact, but he really did "stud" him here and I can't see any outcome other than a red card for SFP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top