A&H

Dangerous or not

Robin

New Member
Level 7 Referee
I Had an U14s game today which was a top of the table clash as well as a local derby, I had the privilege of 2 assistants who were qualified referees so it really helped me in the end. However here is the dilemma/issue I had today.

The striker from the red team went in for a 50/50 with the goalkeeper which was most definitely a 50/50 a split second movement, the striker caught the keeper in the face with his boot and obviously the Goalkeeper went down and stayed down, I called the managers onto the pitch to attend to the player and you could clearly see the stud marks and it started to swell up. Both managers were happy as it was a 50/50 yet dangerous movement but no malice.

I went over to my assistant and he suggested a definite yellow as it was not malicious but it was dangerous, however I was not really sure what to do cos the boys face looked terrible so was caught in a bit of a conundrum because it was dangerous but it was mistimed but definitely not malicious. I called both captains over to explain the situation and they were happy and cautioned the striker.

The GK got subbed off and 10 minutes later at HT as myself and the assistants made our way off the pitch to the changing rooms the GK came onto the pitch to show me his face which was obviously terrible at this point, he confronted me and said look at my face and say why was it not a red, added to that the father confronted us saying it was definitely a red card to which we ignored of course.

Was a yellow card the right choice or is it always a red because of the injury that is caused?

Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated.
 
The Referee Store
You haven't described the actual facts around the challenge. So we can't comment.

What did you see? How did the striker go in? Was it in the air or on the ground? How much force was used? Who was closer to the ball?
 
First off, were they neutral assistants? Or just club ones who told you they were qualified refs?

2. Your assistant was talking out of his hind quarters......intent has nothing to do with your decision making process so it doesn't matter whether it was malicious or not. Also, if it's dangerous, it's always a red. Reckless is yellow, dangerous is red.

3. As a referee we deal with the actual challenge, not the consequences of it. Although this is sometimes difficult to explain to players and managers when someone has been injured because they will only see the injury and expect you to react to that instead of the challenge.

4. Very difficult to say whether you were correct in a caution or not....only you saw the challenge, we didn't.
For me, even if it was a 50/50 if in order to challenge for it the attacker had to be putting his boot anywhere near the gk's face I would be thinking dangerous.....just because it is 50/50 doesn't give a player carte Blanche on how they challenge....so if it was obvious that they would need to put their boot near the GK head to win the ball, I would probably be blowing up whether they won the ball or not. Winning the ball might earn them a caution, missing the ball and catching the GK, would be a red for endangering the safety of an opponent.

Having said all that.....it all depends on how the challenge was made etc....
 
Thanks for the reply guys.

I saw the striker go for the ball which was down low like just below knee length and as he kicked the ball he missed the ball and caught the keeper on the follow through who dived at his feet. There wasn't a lot of force but still quite hard anyway, they both went in at the same time.

The referees were league appointed so were qualified and were neutral.

Maybe my wording was wrong then, it wasn't dangerous it was more reckless than anything else.
 
Thanks for the reply guys.

I saw the striker go for the ball which was down low like just below knee length and as he kicked the ball he missed the ball and caught the keeper on the follow through who dived at his feet. There wasn't a lot of force but still quite hard anyway, they both went in at the same time.

The referees were league appointed so were qualified and were neutral.

Maybe my wording was wrong then, it wasn't dangerous it was more reckless than anything else.

Had the gk dived before the attacker went to kick the ball?
 
It was so quick, cant really remember to be fair, the ball was there to be won and the striker missed it and caught the GK. Was definitely not malicious more accidental than anything else.
 
Thanks for your comments player, misconduct to follow.

Assistants only answer one question - What did you see? No opinions, no "if, but, maybe, could have, might have......"

Remove the work intent from your vocabulary - no person can ever know the intent of another, and to guess based on limited knowledge is naive. Have thy met before? Did the keeper get him sent off before? was there a comment beween them earlier in the game? Has one's girlfriend left him for the other one? Family or school aliances?

Did Shawcross intend to break Ramsey's leg .......?
 
"Accidental" or "not malicious" are meaningless words for a referee.
Has the player acted with complete disregard of the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent? Yellow Card
Has the player far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent? Red card
 
"Accidental" or "not malicious" are meaningless words for a referee.
Has the player acted with complete disregard of the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent? Yellow Card
Has the player far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent? Red card
Absolutely agree. The OP is using words like "accidental" and "malicious" way too often in describing this. They should not even be a consideration. And while it is true that you shouldn't use the severity of any resulting injury as the sole means of judging the severity of the offence, I find it difficult to conceive of a challenge that leaves stud marks on an opponent's face that was not, at a minimum, dangerous.

Incidentally, page 128, LotG 2015-16 edition (pdf version ) states that any tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play. It seems to me that any challenge that involves swinging the boot, studs up, into an opponent's face, has most probably endangered the safety of that opponent.
 
Back
Top