Bournemouth v Newcastle

[CaptainsPlease]

Is throwing an object a footballing action?

It can be, for example an item of player's equipment falls off and a team mate throws it back to them. Or a player throws a ball to another taking a restart.

 

[JamesL]

It can be, for example an item of player's equipment falls off and a team mate throws it back to them. Or a player throws a ball to another taking a restart.

Very smart. But I think you know what I am getting at. There are examples in the book such as throwing the ball at an opponent where the force of that throw has to be judged as careless, reckless, excessive. By your logic, anything other than a light throw to allow playing of the ball by the thrower has to be a red card because by your logic it's excessive, yet the laws specifically prescribe the judgement of CRUEF. Similar to kicking the ball at an opponent from a free kick restart..

 

[Johnson]

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.

Disagree with the idea that whether force used is excessive is independent of who the force is used against. The vagueness of the term “excessive” allows, and has allowed, referees to take into account the context. E.g, I’m sending off a player that pushes a match official but not a player that pushes an opponent.

 

[Big Cat]

Disagree with the idea that whether force used is excessive is independent of who the force is used against. The vagueness of the term “excessive” allows, and has allowed, referees to take into account the context. E.g, I’m sending off a player that pushes a match official but not a player that pushes an opponent.

Likewise, I'm sending off a player who recklessly makes contact with an opponent who cannot be challenged for the ball (goalkeeper in possession of the ball) just like I'm sending that player off for the same action against anyone when the ball is not in play (Violent Conduct, such as striking an opponent)

Nuance and context but recklessly 'striking an opponent' is not reckless play in circumstances when that opponent is not being challenged for the ball

 

[FirsFox40]

Times like these when we need a brown card for someone just acting like a right nob.

 

[Big Cat]

Times like these when we need a brown card for someone just acting like a right nob.

Well yes, the blue card was intended for aggravated SPA
Sometimes, a player will recklessly foul a player in the process of SPA when there's no possibility whatsoever of winning the ball, but those incidents are hotly debated because we must judge whether indeed there was a challenge for the ball. When there is definitely no challenge for the ball, nuance and context leans me towards 'endangering an opponent' because the action is for no good reason other than cheating. The absence of a challenge for the ball (like GK in control) draws equivalence with VC when the ball is not in play That's what Joelinton did

That's why the footballing world has universally expected a red card for Joe, even though they can't verbalise their case for the prosecution
However, those refs who have argued for yellow are married to wording in the book that does not account for nuance and context (it is just a pamphlet at the end of the day and not a comprehensive book of case law)

 

[RefereeX]

John McGinn's 'tackle' last season springs to mind

 

[JamesL]

John McGinn's 'tackle' last season springs to mind

Now that was excessive force!!!

 

[RustyRef]

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

Think I might make a separate Law thread on this topic.

The problem with that it would effectively make most acts of SPA a VC red card. They aren't making a challenge for the ball, therefore any contact they make on the opponent is unnecessary.

 

[Kent Ref]

What about that classic saying "what the game expects"? Does that exist still?

 

[DavidObs]

My ex Coach who was an Ex Premier League Referee hated that expression.

 

[Kent Ref]

My ex Coach who was an Ex Premier League Referee hated that expression.

So do i but it's always being quoted on here by 2 or 3 posters.

 

[cwyeary]

What about that classic saying "what the game expects"? Does that exist still?

It's actually codified in the laws now.

The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, ‘what would football want/expect?’

 

[one]

.

What about that classic saying "what the game expects"? Does that exist still?

So do i but it's always being quoted on here by 2 or 3 posters.

You need to look at context of those posts (in Most cases). It should only be used when the law is not clear.

"What games expects" is a very dangerous area to delve into. Most games expect any shout of "leave it" is a FK and no card. Or if you get the ball it can't be a free kick etc etc.