CONCACAF Women's Championship - OFR

[RefIADad]

First group game of the CONCACAF W(omen's) Championship in Monterrey, Mexico. US-Haiti, 45th minute. This play (if not geoblocked) shows a play originally ruled as SFP, but then called down as an OFR and reversed to a USB caution. I'm obviously a US fan, but this sure seems like SFP and also not a clear error warranting an onfield review.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1544106001623924736

 

[socal lurker]

U
The US team wasnt shy about showing the ref evidence of the contact . . .

while I would not have been too distressed by a yellow if it were the live call, I am disturbed by the idea that SFP here was a C&O error. The only basis I can see that could explain it in a good way is if the ref had said she gave the red for foot. To head contact—which was objectively incorrect.

 

[JamesL]

Be good to see in real time. Whilst a boot to the shoulder is not nice the slow Mo appears to lack the force needed for SFP.
C&O probably not but until I see a real time view i think I'm happy with a caution for this challenge.

 

[GraemeS]

while I would not have been too distressed by a yellow if it were the live call, I am disturbed by the idea that SFP here was a C&O error. The only basis I can see that could explain it in a good way is if the ref had said she gave the red for foot. To head contact—which was objectively incorrect.

Really astute observation, I think you might have nailed it here. Yet another example of where hiding the ref-VAR communication only makes things more confusing.

 

[RefIADad]

Full speed shot that should show the actual nature of the challenge. Perhaps unsurprisingly give the criticism of its officiating practices, this play was not part of the official CONCACAF highlights.

For me, I don’t understand why we would want this type of play in our game in any form. It’s a locked leg that starts at head/neck height. Perhaps the Haitian player slightly bends her knee, but this remains a shoulder-high boot with studs fully exposed raking the US player down her shoulder to her ribs. Force is one consideration for a send off, but there are still a number of other considerations that, in my opinion, make a SFP red not only a “non-C&O error”, but the correct call.

In other words, absent any other training (and this is CONCACAF, where it’s more or less the Wild West on the field of play in terms of lack of misconduct), I would actually “confirm” the call and say that SFP was the right call. (Side note-I know this is not in the protocols, but I wish we would use language in the NFL where calls that are deemed as correct would be communicated as “confirmed”.)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1544107147042213893

 

[JamesL]

Full speed shot that should show the actual nature of the challenge. Perhaps unsurprisingly give the criticism of its officiating practices, this play was not part of the official CONCACAF highlights.

For me, I don’t understand why we would want this type of play in our game in any form. It’s a locked leg that starts at head/neck height. Perhaps the Haitian player slightly bends her knee, but this remains a shoulder-high boot with studs fully exposed raking the US player down her shoulder to her ribs. Force is one consideration for a send off, but there are still a number of other considerations that, in my opinion, make a SFP red not only a “non-C&O error”, but the correct call.

In other words, absent any other training (and this is CONCACAF, where it’s more or less the Wild West on the field of play in terms of lack of misconduct), I would actually “confirm” the call and say that SFP was the right call. (Side note-I know this is not in the protocols, but I wish we would use language in the NFL where calls that are deemed as correct would be communicated as “confirmed”.)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1544107147042213893

Not a red card for me at full speed. There is minimal force in the contact, and no safety endangered as a result. Point of contact not great and see your point about not encouraging/allowing these types of challenges but it just lacks any real force to warrant an SFP imo.
Not a clear and obvious error though and whilst what you type makes sense it doesn't really correlate in the video for me.

 

[Will_A]

Not enough force to warrant SFP for me, clearly reckless though!
However, I wouldn’t class it as a C&O error.

 

[RustyRef]

That's not a red card for me, but equally it certainly wasn't a clear and obvious error either.

 

[RefIADad]

I guess I can see the point of view saying reckless over excessive. I still think that in my matches, I’d go red here with a good look since grassroots players aren’t in control as much compared to professional players.

 

[Anubis]

For once, either by choice or fluke, the commentator has it spot on, its dangerous/reckless

Certain yellow for me but can accept red without agreeing with it

 

[Big Cat]

For once, either by choice or fluke, the commentator has it spot on, its dangerous/reckless

Certain yellow for me but can accept red without agreeing with it

As I've pointed out before, 'Danger' is the product of 'Recklessness', so why should Referees (or more specifically IFAB) expect everyone to abandon the common use of the words? I tend only to use those two descriptions when it's apt to do so with an Observer in earshot
Maybe such words as reckless and dangerous are better differentiated in other languages, but it's quite reasonable for them to be interchangeable in our neck of the woods IMO. 'Excessive force' (SFP) and 'act of brutality' (VC) are examples of terms that won't be misused

I've always held the strong opinion... 'that definitions should be the foundation of the book and referenced throughout'. Instead, the LOTG use definitions as an afterthought which is why we end up with absurd confusion such as 'dangerous' and 'PIADM'. What chance have commentators got with those two phrases 'kicking about'?

 

[Peter Grove]

As I've pointed out before, 'Danger' is the product of 'Recklessness', so why should Referees (or more specifically IFAB) expect everyone to abandon the common use of the words? I tend only to use those two descriptions when it's apt to do so with an Observer in earshot
Maybe such words as reckless and dangerous are better differentiated in other languages, but it's quite reasonable for them to be interchangeable in our neck of the woods IMO. 'Excessive force' (SFP) and 'act of brutality' (VC) are examples of terms that won't be misused

I've always held the strong opinion... 'that definitions should be the foundation of the book and referenced throughout'. Instead, the LOTG use definitions as an afterthought which is why we end up with absurd confusion such as 'dangerous' and 'PIADM'. What chance have commentators got with those two phrases 'kicking about'?

I agree - as I've pointed out several times before, the terms are not mutually exclusive. Any tackle that uses excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent, is almost invariably reckless as well.