A&H

Coventry vs Birmingham

The Referee Store
Can’t complain. It’s not even a tactical foul, as there’s no attempt for the ball whatsoever.

Was subsequently confirmed via commentary that it was for SFP.

Also good to see that some of those commenting do agree with it. And Lee Hendrie “it’s a clip of the heels” 🙄
 
Was just coming for the same thing.
I'd be going yellow...
But has he seen it as serious foul play?

Serious foul play

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

Has he looked at it that Woods lunged at him and his leg is literally swiping him out - endangering the safety of his opponent? I dont see excessive force here...
 
Can’t complain. It’s not even a tactical foul, as there’s no attempt for the ball whatsoever.

Was subsequently confirmed via commentary that it was for SFP.

Also good to see that some of those commenting do agree with it. And Lee Hendrie “it’s a clip of the heels” 🙄
That would make it violent conduct, wouldn't it? 😉
 
Well done referee, two, its a red card,
I can go sfp here, lunging, endangeing safety, or vc, either way get this guy off the pitch, these are exactly the tacklles any referee protecting his players, and under the disguised mantra of spirit of the game will want to dismiss for. Whilst its not the hardest whack of all time, its cynical, and players deliberately chopping down opponents is not part of the game
Away from the lotg and whilst this would not be a consideration for me at the time, he deserves to leave the pitch morally for his sheer disregard for the game

I quote, weak referee often, so i will alter that to try not cause offence, a referee wishing an easy ride here will go yellow, in a rare turn of events, i agree football expects a yellow here, however, a football referee knows its a red and a strong referee will administer one.

i could understand a yellow here but i be going red and i be wanting a red in a match am observing
 
To be fair to the player here and players in all levels of football, I think most want a red card for tackles like this where the sole intention is to foul to SPA whilst the ball is miles away. Fans want it too imo. But the issue here is we are not there yet. This has been a yellow card for practically every referee in world football at all levels for years and years. Therefore, I can see why the player and his team are so angry.

Of course I can see the SFP angle to this, and in time these types of tackles will probably be reds. But imo this needs to be a directive from above communicated to all stakeholders at the start of the season. This almost feels like a rogue incident.

And to repeat, I do want to see a red for these challenges, but its very clear that it would normally be yellow and therefore the anger from the effected team is understandable.
 
To be fair to the player here and players in all levels of football, I think most want a red card for tackles like this where the sole intention is to foul to SPA whilst the ball is miles away. Fans want it too imo. But the issue here is we are not there yet. This has been a yellow card for practically every referee in world football at all levels for years and years. Therefore, I can see why the player and his team are so angry.

Of course I can see the SFP angle to this, and in time these types of tackles will probably be reds. But imo this needs to be a directive from above communicated to all stakeholders at the start of the season. This almost feels like a rogue incident.

And to repeat, I do want to see a red for these challenges, but its very clear that it would normally be yellow and therefore the anger from the effected team is understandable.

it reminded me of the Athletico one at Liverpool a few weeks ago

Which was also correctly sanctioned.

if we as referees allow this kind of tackle , ' here have a token yellow for your act of cynicalism', then its a given thats what the masses expect
However if we are strong and refuse to tolerate such barbarity, then anyone with the sports best interests at heart will appluad us.

for clarity, despite what might have been said on tv, am going violent conduct here, this is not a challenge for the ball so cannot be sfp, making it kicking an opponent,
 
Last edited:
I admire the referee for issuing the red, but I don't think many referees would do the same. I'm trying to understand how he came to decision using the laws of the game (as opposed to it being something many people just agree with).
Deliberate clipping the heels of someone from behind happens often and gets a yellow for reckless with a commentator typically saying "he's taking one for the team". It's also a SPA, but both offenses occur at the same time. If it wasn't also a SPA situation, I think the ref would have gone yellow.
However, I can maybe see how, at a stretch, a red can be issued for SFP:
Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Maybe.... as the attacker was running at quite a clip, the Birmingham player maybe should have known the tackle would have endangered his opponent, but for me, that's really a stretch.
I also don't really see a "lunge" here.

Actually, just thinking about it now, last season I had an u12 player do something very very similar. However, the u12 player didn't slide into the back of the other player - just clip his heels. I saw him eye the heels and try to take a nip before he finally got him. No way would I have issued red for that.

Again, I think it was good to see.
 
To be fair to the player here and players in all levels of football, I think most want a red card for tackles like this where the sole intention is to foul to SPA whilst the ball is miles away. Fans want it too imo. But the issue here is we are not there yet. This has been a yellow card for practically every referee in world football at all levels for years and years. Therefore, I can see why the player and his team are so angry.

Of course I can see the SFP angle to this, and in time these types of tackles will probably be reds. But imo this needs to be a directive from above communicated to all stakeholders at the start of the season. This almost feels like a rogue incident.

And to repeat, I do want to see a red for these challenges, but its very clear that it would normally be yellow and therefore the anger from the effected team is understandable.
So I have previously argued against red cards in the 2 similar incidents to this one. Xhaka and Ralls.
However this one for me is a clear red card.
It meets the definition of SFP almost text book. It's not a trip, or a leg up, he swipes his boot across the back of the legs and I think even in a non spa player getting away type foul if expect a referee to give a red card.
 
Not this again. We've had a few of these discussions recently and this falls in the same camp as most of them (with a few exceptions) - we all want it to be red, but it's not supported by current laws. This isn't violent, it isn't dangerous, it doesn't meet any of the actual criteria for SFP or VC. It might well be cheating and "anti-football" - but those aren't currently defined as red card offenses.

Referees showing red here are making laws up as they go to try and impose their definition of what football "should" be. But that's the job of IFAB, not individual referees. Everyone expected yellow here, and that's because current laws clearly define this as a yellow card offence. It's an easy change and it's one that should be made, but we're not empowered to punish players based on what we think the laws might be in a few years time.
 
So I have previously argued against red cards in the 2 similar incidents to this one. Xhaka and Ralls.
However this one for me is a clear red card.
It meets the definition of SFP almost text book. It's not a trip, or a leg up, he swipes his boot across the back of the legs and I think even in a non spa player getting away type foul if expect a referee to give a red card.
James - just to help those less experienced, can you explain what part of SFP this falls under?
BTW: from my view, the contact was with the feet of the attacker rather than the back of the legs. If this is the case, would it change your mind red/yellow?
 
i am absolutely fine with a red here.

what i would also like to see is a sin bin brought in for less serious examples of tactical fouls like this when one team is breaking and someone 'takes one for the team'. a yellow for those challenges never seems enough and isnt enough of a deterrent to stop it. the threat of a sin bin might.
 
James - just to help those less experienced, can you explain what part of SFP this falls under?
BTW: from my view, the contact was with the feet of the attacker rather than the back of the legs. If this is the case, would it change your mind red/yellow?

Let’s base this on one look for now, as that’s what we’d get if it happened in our games:

- Likelihood of playing the ball is non existent.

- Tackles with both feet off the ground, lack of control.

- Challenge from behind, which gives the opponent no chance to avoid it/dodge it. Risk to safety here.

- Speed of challenge from behind - see above.

At our levels you’re going to have players running in reminding you it’s two-footed and potentially looking to stick one on him. Players will demand that you protect them. You’ll need to deal with it or lose your match control too.

For the incident as it happened, the comment about heels being clipped is a little misleading. Had the player fouled been caught higher up the leg, the calf or further up then there’d be no debate about the red.

The fact that the fouler has missed this doesn’t mitigate the challenge. It’s the risk to safety; had the player been slower it could have been much worse.

This is also a derby game, so everything is ratcheted up several notches. Tensions and emotions are higher increasing the risk of retaliation.
 
James - just to help those less experienced, can you explain what part of SFP this falls under?
BTW: from my view, the contact was with the feet of the attacker rather than the back of the legs. If this is the case, would it change your mind red/yellow?

James - just to help those less experienced, can you explain what part of SFP this falls under?
BTW: from my view, the contact was with the feet of the attacker rather than the back of the legs. If this is the case, would it change your mind red/yellow?
To me he has lunged at the player from behind and endangered his safety.
I think the clear difference in this one vs the other 2 I referenced is the other two the trip/leg up occurs from the front (xhaka is behind but the contact is in front of the player iirc) this is a. Straight swiping of the legs and the height of the Cotact is also quite high up. The player is not expecting this, has not sight of it and the first he knows is as he is sent crashing into the mud.
I initially thought that he caught the rear of the left leg as well but perhaps I was mistaken
 
I get where these two posts are coming from, but I think there's an element of cart leading the horse here. We all want this to be red, but I think it takes an awful lot of effort to squeeze it into the SFP boxes, when the yellow card answer of a trip that stops a promising attack is a far easier and more obvious sell.
 
Why wouldn't this be VC? If the little kickouts are and the "headbutts" where the player pushs his head into anothers face but not much else fall under VC then surely this is? He hasn't attempted to play or challenge for the ball. He's simply kicked an opponent. It's VC.
 
Why wouldn't this be VC? If the little kickouts are and the "headbutts" where the player pushs his head into anothers face but not much else fall under VC then surely this is? He hasn't attempted to play or challenge for the ball. He's simply kicked an opponent. It's VC.
Why has he done it?
 
The complicating factor for me is that there are 2 separate actions :

1. A big old swipe at mid-calf height that misses
2. Followed almost immediately by an ankle tap trip, which is what actually brings him down

If 1. connects, it's RC all day long
If he hadn't attempted 1. and it's just 2, it's YC all day long.

From the ref's angle. not sure he can tell which action brought the player down, although you can argue how relevant that is

In law, I think you can justify RC for the attempt of 1. even though he misses
I also think YC for the actual trip is justifiable

A grey area - who knew it !
 
Back
Top