RefSix

Controversial in polish league.

What decision should be?₩

  • No foul.

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • Foul, no card.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Foul, yellow card.

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • Foul, red card.

    Votes: 20 74.1%

  • Total voters
    27

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#4
That's quite a difficult one.

I'm clearly in the minority here, and, as already mentioned, the slow motion doesn't really help much but the red player appears to clear the ball and a split second later the blue player's shin connects with his studs. It's not as if there's any natural follow-through on the challenge though and, if anything, the red player is drawing his leg backwards away from his opponents leg as if to avoid contact. Not easy for the ref in real time.

Certainly careless, borderline reckless, but not a red card for me.
 
#6
That's quite a difficult one.

I'm clearly in the minority here, and, as already mentioned, the slow motion doesn't really help much but the red player appears to clear the ball and a split second later the blue player's shin connects with his studs. It's not as if there's any natural follow-through on the challenge though and, if anything, the red player is drawing his leg backwards away from his opponents leg as if to avoid contact. Not easy for the ref in real time.

Certainly careless, borderline reckless, but not a red card for me.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#7
Really? A full set of studs showing, making direct contact with the opponents leg, at speed.

Am struggling to see any justification for how this challenge, if you can call it that, does not endanger the safety of an opponent under the parameters set down in Law 12?
That's your right and your opinion obviously differs to mine.

Instead of asking me, simply read what I wrote. That's what I think and how I see it. I don't want to look at stills which tell us nothing, neither should you be really.

He reaches the ball first, kicks it away, and his foot connects with his opponents leg. That's all there is to it.

The ref just has to decide under what category he feels it falls.
 

WilliamD

Well-Known Member
#8
I'm with @Kes. It's not just "I got the ball", it's "as I kicked the ball I got the guy heading towards me at speed". It is quite literally careless in my view as he was only thinking about kicking the ball. Reckless disregards safety (I could possibly be sold on this) and excessive force - I don't see it - despite the slow motion looking like a chain saw cutting a leg off.
 
#10
That's your right and your opinion obviously differs to mine.

Instead of asking me, simply read what I wrote. That's what I think and how I see it. I don't want to look at stills which tell us nothing, neither should you be really.

He reaches the ball first, kicks it away, and his foot connects with his opponents leg. That's all there is to it.

The ref just has to decide under what category he feels it falls.
I did read your comment and fully understood it.

When looking at that video (excluding the stills for arguments sake) I am asking myself has that challenge "endangered the safety of an opponent"? - In my view it absolutely has. A full set of studs has been planted against the shin of an opponent with considerable force and, in my opinion, that constitutes endangering an opponents safety as the potential ramifications of such a challenge are very serious.

Out of interest, if the ball was removed from the incident and the red player was not successful in playing it what would your sanction be here?
 

WilliamD

Well-Known Member
#11
I did read your comment and fully understood it.

When looking at that video (excluding the stills for arguments sake) I am asking myself has that challenge "endangered the safety of an opponent"? - In my view it absolutely has. A full set of studs has been planted against the shin of an opponent with considerable force and, in my opinion, that constitutes endangering an opponents safety as the potential ramifications of such a challenge are very serious.

Out of interest, if the ball was removed from the incident and the red player was not successful in playing it what would your sanction be here?
if the ball was removed it would be violent conduct / assault. The ball is there and he has kicked it well clear and caught the other player on his follow through - this happens and is often careless or reckless. "Studs were showing" is something we hear a lot from players but it's only part of the picture.
 

BCMilan

Active Member
#12
I really do think we should watch these clips once, and at the correct speed, before we make a judgement. I assume that's all the ref has had in this clip, so why should be basing our views on slomos ??
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#16
I did read your comment and fully understood it.

When looking at that video (excluding the stills for arguments sake) I am asking myself has that challenge "endangered the safety of an opponent"? - In my view it absolutely has. A full set of studs has been planted against the shin of an opponent with considerable force and, in my opinion, that constitutes endangering an opponents safety as the potential ramifications of such a challenge are very serious.

Out of interest, if the ball was removed from the incident and the red player was not successful in playing it what would your sanction be here?
It doesn't really matter Joe.

Fact is, in real time I might even myself be tempted to see it as SFP especially since no doubt the blue player squealed like a pig the second contact was made, but actually, even though it's not conclusive, the slow motion view that's been supplied suggests to me that it wasn't.

It's a contact sport and sometimes 5hit happens. You can't treat every bit of contact as though it's an intention to hurt your opponent.
Who's to say the blue player couldn't have avoided it? He's still on his feet whereas the red player who won the ball had clearly made up his mind that this was a clearance he was going to make.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other as the saying goes. ;)

When you penalise a player for "high foot" dangerous play (ie no contact made) near an opponent's head, you still have to decide if the "danger" was created by the high foot or the other guy for deciding to stick his head there. :cool:

Still not a red for me mate. Not based on what I'm seeing.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#18
I can see why one would say this is not a red card, though I don't agree with it. But what I don't understand is to then class it as reckless. It has to be either a red or nothing. If you consider it in the 'disregard' or 'lack of attention' category then surly the speed, point of contact, contact with (studs) would make it excessive force (endanger safety).

Another way to look at it is that if you think this contact is not red because it is incidental (part of the sport) then it shouldn't be a foul at all.
 
Top