Bournemouth v Newcastle
- Thread starter Paul_10
- Start date
Not sure it matters as the decision was for handball. If it was for a foul, that is subjective and Coote would have been asked to take a look at the monitor if the VAR thought it was a foul.
That said I don't think a foul would be expected here, certainly not at premier league.
one
RefChat Addict
I am pretty sure you already know this as you have called it out on other's posts. There is a big difference between saying that and saying "the VAR thought it would be clearly and obviously wrong not calling it a foul".
Another way of thinking about the Joelinton misdemeanour.....
In your game, if you choose to Caution for whatever, you might well be facing a lot more subsequent misconduct and possibly even an abandonment. This is not so much true in professional football but is more and more likely towards the bottom of the pyramid (and grass roots)
If however, you send Joelinton off in your Step 5 game or whatever (although he'd be a stella player at that Level), that will probably be the end of it.
My mindset stems from this truth. Sometimes you need to use the Laws to reach the right decision for YOU the referee.
As it's very easy to justify excessive force in this case (even though some may argue semantics to the contrary), just make the Law work for you. It's also surely unlikely an observer would not support SFP/VC whereas if you caution, the observer might well end your season
It's that simple to me (from my armchair). Just do what common sense dictates and don't swim against the tide (or rip current in this case)
And don't reward (encourage) cheating with undue lenience, especially this form of aggravated cheating
In your game, if you choose to Caution for whatever, you might well be facing a lot more subsequent misconduct and possibly even an abandonment. This is not so much true in professional football but is more and more likely towards the bottom of the pyramid (and grass roots)
If however, you send Joelinton off in your Step 5 game or whatever (although he'd be a stella player at that Level), that will probably be the end of it.
My mindset stems from this truth. Sometimes you need to use the Laws to reach the right decision for YOU the referee.
As it's very easy to justify excessive force in this case (even though some may argue semantics to the contrary), just make the Law work for you. It's also surely unlikely an observer would not support SFP/VC whereas if you caution, the observer might well end your season
It's that simple to me (from my armchair). Just do what common sense dictates and don't swim against the tide (or rip current in this case)
And don't reward (encourage) cheating with undue lenience, especially this form of aggravated cheating
Last edited:
Exactly right.
Reffing in the real world if you let a player do that to the keeper how would you keep control after not sending him off?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Maybe I’m biased as a former keeper, but for me clotheslining the keeper is an unambiguous red are. Pulling someone down that way is excessive in the force used and dangerous in American football, let alone with a GK with no reason to expect to be horse collared.
One note on the armpit/shirt sleeve discussion: when the armpit was first introduced to Law 12, the diagram didn’t match the words and did look like shirt sleeves. I think that is what led to the language and the myth.
I’m curious—before the Law defined where the arm started, what was the guidance in the UK? In the US it was taught that the division was between the top of the shoulder and the side (where the seem to start the arm would be on a dress shirt), so the armpit was a non-trivial interpretive change. (And I kinda think a line that wouldn’t be drawn today with the focus on VAR, as a VAR can npmuvh more readily determine objectively top vs side than the mystical arm pit line.)
One note on the armpit/shirt sleeve discussion: when the armpit was first introduced to Law 12, the diagram didn’t match the words and did look like shirt sleeves. I think that is what led to the language and the myth.
I’m curious—before the Law defined where the arm started, what was the guidance in the UK? In the US it was taught that the division was between the top of the shoulder and the side (where the seem to start the arm would be on a dress shirt), so the armpit was a non-trivial interpretive change. (And I kinda think a line that wouldn’t be drawn today with the focus on VAR, as a VAR can npmuvh more readily determine objectively top vs side than the mystical arm pit line.)
one
RefChat Addict
And it still isn't. If you look at the line for the green area when the arm is horizontal, the lower end is about 4 inches away from the armpit and not in line with it. In fact if we draw a ring around the arm for the bottoms of green area, when the arm is vertical or when the arm is horizontal, they would be two completely different lines.
I think the diagrams (the old and the new) are creating more confusion than helping.
Last edited:
Two cautions on that basis.
No. They are the offences committed simultaneously and therefore you can only punish the more serious offence, which on this case would be B) reckless.
Interested in what you mean but OK if you're leaving it there.
I'd also be interested to know whether you would avoid sending off a player who did the exact same thing as this to an official or a spectator, given Law is no different VC is VC regardless of who it is committed against. It seems to me that is the clearest indication that we are supposed to consider whether the action/contact should be happening at all.
That is FA regulation and a distinct matter to the Law question over when a red card for VC is warranted. 'Excessive force' is defined in the glossary as 'using more force/energy than is necessary'.
This means either:
- Any use of force on another person when unnecessary should be a red card for VC - my preferred interpretation
- Or there is a certain amount of force that must be met to be considered not 'necessary' and this minimum threshold applies across all cases - not my preferred interpretation
Last edited:
“Excessive” force/brutality for VC or Unsporting Behaviour - that is what the debate has been about since the Bournemouth incident - some will say excessive force/brutality and others think Unsporting Behaviour - reckless play. The debate has been going on now for quite a while. At the end of the day as with many decisions it’s subjective and not a straightforward black or white.
Separate thread here for anyone who is interested in the Law discussion
I've closed it as creating a new topic just to discuss what is being done to death on here makes no sense.
Inappropriate contact with a match official is the proper term.
Is throwing an object a footballing action?
I'll just throw in that the nuances of "excessive force" have accumulated, in order to try and define the undefinable. It was always an arbitrary thing - the disciplinary distinctions for "careless, reckless or using excessive force" were an afterthought. A bit more thought and "reckless" would have been the more serious offence. And throwing in "brutality" was stupid, given the dictionary definition. The Krays were brutal.
Ignore all the attempts to accommodate the poor use of language in the law. Would the following really offend comprehension? (What is just enough force but no more than "necessary"? Is endangering safety worse than acting without regard to danger?)
Ignore all the attempts to accommodate the poor use of language in the law. Would the following really offend comprehension? (What is just enough force but no more than "necessary"? Is endangering safety worse than acting without regard to danger?)
- Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be cautioned
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be sent off