A&H

Coventry vs Birmingham

Players kick each other during the course of play 100+ times a match - we don't send every single one off. Instead, we consider context, force, intent etc etc. Again, this is cart leading the horse logic - you want to send off, so you're ignoring all the other factors you would typically consider in order to reach the decision you're desperate to reach.

It's a lunge, that ticks a red card for SFP. It is deliberately kicking an opponent, that ticks a red card for VC. Take your pick.
A perfect example of what I'm saying.

The lunge section still requires "excessive force or endangering the safety of the opponent": a tap to the ankle is not excessive force and we've already discussed how considering ground impact as dangerous opens a whole can of worms.

Similarly, even when not challenging for the ball, violent contact still requires "excessive force or brutality", which simply do not apply here.

The only possible way to apply these laws to get to a red card involves sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring half of the requirements. I'd be the first to celebrate if laws changed to actually allow for a red here - but it's not our place to just start making things up and hoping our decisions end up being correct based on 2025/26 LOTG.
 
The Referee Store
Would the decision be any different if the Coventry player did not have the ball?
If Ryan Woods lunged in on an opposition player who was running to support an attack and took him down the same way. Would that be a red?
 
Would the decision be any different if the Coventry player did not have the ball?
If Ryan Woods lunged in on an opposition player who was running to support an attack and took him down the same way. Would that be a red?
I've been following this debate with interest but not coming off the fence until now. @GraemeS has made a really coherent and powerful defence of why it should (under current laws) be yellow. However I think @Macca poses a brilliant question here. The offence would 'feel' very different if the player didn't have the ball, perhaps mainly because it would be less "expected". However in reality, if there is no possibility of playing the ball, the offence is actually the same. I was already leaning towards red (and not just because I "want" challenges like this to be seen as VC) and this thought from Macca helps me solidify this view.
 
Would the decision be any different if the Coventry player did not have the ball?
If Ryan Woods lunged in on an opposition player who was running to support an attack and took him down the same way. Would that be a red?
It's a really good question, but I think my answer is still the same - it feels red, I want it to be red, the sport as a whole wants it to be red. And the fact the ball isn't in the vicinity does mean I'd set my bar for "excessive force" as low as I can possibly justify setting it, even lower than in the clip we're discussing.

But the force used still has to clear that bar and if it doesn't, I think it still has to fall down the same hole in the law and we're limited to yellow.

I'm just so wary of ignoring the written law in favour of applying what we perceive to be "Spirit of the Game", because that's exactly how Last Week's Ref gets started.
 
It's a really good question, but I think my answer is still the same - it feels red, I want it to be red, the sport as a whole wants it to be red. And the fact the ball isn't in the vicinity does mean I'd set my bar for "excessive force" as low as I can possibly justify setting it, even lower than in the clip we're discussing.

But the force used still has to clear that bar and if it doesn't, I think it still has to fall down the same hole in the law and we're limited to yellow.

I'm just so wary of ignoring the written law in favour of applying what we perceive to be "Spirit of the Game", because that's exactly how Last Week's Ref gets started.

Thiese posts show debate can be healthy.

try this, in favour of red i present...

you ever tripped a pal up? maybe the kid whilst playing in garden?
stuck a trailing leg out so they fall over? played 5s with workmates and, tripped one up?

if so, hopefully you simply tripped them up, and not booted them like in the clip.

we now have a kick, and with it, vc instead of reckless,
 
Thiese posts show debate can be healthy.

try this, in favour of red i present...

you ever tripped a pal up? maybe the kid whilst playing in garden?
stuck a trailing leg out so they fall over? played 5s with workmates and, tripped one up?

if so, hopefully you simply tripped them up, and not booted them like in the clip.

we now have a kick, and with it, vc instead of reckless,
While I agree it looks nothing like a reckless trip, it looks nothing like an aggressive ‘boot’ either.
 
Thiese posts show debate can be healthy.

try this, in favour of red i present...

you ever tripped a pal up? maybe the kid whilst playing in garden?
stuck a trailing leg out so they fall over? played 5s with workmates and, tripped one up?

if so, hopefully you simply tripped them up, and not booted them like in the clip.

we now have a kick, and with it, vc instead of reckless,
I think this is a consequence of how many times we've all now viewed it, and the fact a lot of those viewings would have been in slow motion. We're imagining he had the option for a gentle trip and opted for a more violent sideways motion instead, however I don't think that's the case in reality.

The sideways movement that you're all describing as a kick, and the fact it impacts rather than simply pushing his leg I think is simply a consequence of the speed they're all moving at. He has to actively move his leg into the opponents leg in order to trip him, because he's not starting from a position of being alongside the opponent.

And while I understand that none of that intrinsically stops it being a "kick", I do think it is important if we go back to the discussion of why he did it. I still think he's clearly done this for tactical reasons rather than as an attempt to injure, and the fact he's had to move his leg sideways in order to do that a) doesn't automatically make the force excessive and b) doesn't make it an attempt at VC.
 
Since referees dont read minds, its why handball and fouls arent based on this.

Its the action, not the intent, that is considered.

We dont ask was the arms spread out on purpose. We ask if they are in an unnatural position. Did it make them wider?

If the player cleats someone, we dont consider intent. It happened. The question is was it reckless or lacking regard for the player's safety.

A player may or not intend harm. There is no way I am putting in a game report, "The player intended harm."

"The player recklessly tackled/kicked the opponent."

"The player tackled/kicked the opponent endangering their safety."
 
Since referees dont read minds, its why handball and fouls arent based on this.

Its the action, not the intent, that is considered.

We dont ask was the arms spread out on purpose. We ask if they are in an unnatural position. Did it make them wider?

If the player cleats someone, we dont consider intent. It happened. The question is was it reckless or lacking regard for the player's safety.

A player may or not intend harm. There is no way I am putting in a game report, "The player intended harm."

"The player recklessly tackled/kicked the opponent."

"The player tackled/kicked the opponent endangering their safety."
This is often true - but it doesn't mean we should just ignore the intent in the cases where it is obvious.
 
Back
Top