David F
Member
Wouldn’t a pulling offence need to be a motion of the arm back towards the offender? Joelinton’s was a movement away from his body (with a strong arm and around the neck).
Bournemouth v Newcastle
- Thread starter Paul_10
- Start date
Definitely not a pulling offence - it's a deliberate strike with the arm, making contact with the opponent’s head with more than negligible force.
David F
Member
Also worth mentioning that the reason this is a red in rugby is the need to protect the neck, which houses the spinal cord and is particularly vulnerable to serious injury. Obviously a much bigger issue in rugby because tackles in football are very rarely targeted at the neck, but important to protect the player for the same reason (and to avoid players assuming for the rest of the game that similar challenges will only be YCs).
He caught him in the neck, i didn't see any contact with the head.
I may recall it wrong but keeper is moving forwards, arm is extended to prevent and then pulls back in a pulling motion. It looks like a clothes line style challenge but it certainly wasn't striking in the head from what I remember. Will watch it back at some point.
That still shows nothing conclusive about where the ball actually touches the player.
Why are they talking about a badge on the sleeve then?
Because the badge on the sleeve is an easy to apply visual that is pretty close to the armpit line described in the laws.
The fact that some respected voices on the Forum are adamant this is very clear SFP whilst others are dismissing it as a Caution, is testament to where we are as Referees. Clueless!
In my opinion, you can't go around hooking players out of the game at neck or head height when not challenging for the ball, because that force exceeds the force necessary because there is no force which can be justified in that action
Kes, Joelinton absolutely has to be sent off for this. It's not an acceptable level of force. I hope I'm wrong here, but do I recall you supporting the Shar dismissal when two players breathed on one another only for one of them to cheat?
Where did you hear this? Never heard this before.
Surely the teams just move the badge up, no?
The armpit thing is a terrible idea as that only makes any sense when the arm is down by the side. As soon as the arm is in any other place, the analogy and Law are senseless. The ball did not strike this player's are below the armpit. Besides, very few players have badges on their sleeves. And besides, if this is the guidance, make it Public so that it banishes the shirt sleeve idea. Or better still, put it in the book and stop making it up
I think this is quite a well reasoned discussion
The main point being (and back on topic), how can something be a fact when nobody is agreeing on it?
'Factual handball' the latest VAR doublespeak as Bournemouth-Newcastle sparks to life late on
Bournemouth thought they'd snatched a late win against Newcastle before we all learned in real time that 'factual handball' is now a thing.
www.football365.com
Can it be SFP when the keeper is in control of the ball? It's VC if you're going red. Can you challenge for a ball when it can't be challenged for?
Just don't subscribe to this philosophy. It would make some seriously low level offences red cards
I'm surprised that wasn't appealed and if it was that it was upheld.
Yes, I think, as the keeper had the ball, this fits SFP better than VC. I was only ever thinking SFP, hence the excessive force reasoning
Yes, I mean, I'm usually roughly aligned with your opinions
Disregard, the shoulder, upper arm, armpit, shirt sleeve, badge, fact, clearly not factual, guidance, making Law up debacle. I'm done with that. But I'm quite staggered there's any debate around the red card
Indeed, I listened to an hour's worth of radio in the car earlier and there wasn't a single voice (public or media) that supported the disallowed goal interference from VAR. Likewise, complete unanimity regarding the red card
Anyway, we were extraordinarily lucky to get away with that double-whammy