A&H

Euro 2020 final

The Referee Store
Let me know when you are reffing my game so I make sure to make a decent fight out of it if someone pulls my shirt ;)
I think his point is in that situation he doesn't just want to send off the retaliator.
 
I think his point is in that situation he doesn't just want to send off the retaliator.
Not sure what my point was, but can't see shirt strangulation being graciously accepted on a Sunday morning. Quite likely, two dismissals will follow
Equally, could leave the Ref in a sticky spot if that happened in front of some kid's mum
Aggravated USB, when the ball is not within playing distance needs to made a dismissible offence (which it's not at the moment, by virtue of TV precedent, rather than Law). Otherwise we end up with Aggravated VC
 
Last edited:
I'm not sending someone off because some Sunday morning clogger might swing a punch in retaliation. You can make that case for literally any tackle, including those that are 100% fair but just happen to upset someone.

If punches are thrown, then send off for the punches. But trying to predict which fouls will incite violence and then punishing those more harshly is a recipe for madness!
 
Not sure what my point was, but can't see shirt strangulation being graciously accepted on a Sunday morning. Quite likely, two dismissals will follow
Equally, could leave the Ref in a sticky spot if that happened in front of some kid's mum
Aggravated USB, when the ball is not within playing distance needs to made a dismissible offence (which it's not at the moment, by virtue of TV precedent, rather than Law). Otherwise we end up with Aggravated VC

But I think you can easily use "excessive force" under both SFP or VC to justify a send off here. It's one thing to pull someone's shirt near the waistline and not have it be excessive or endangering player safety. It's completely differen to be at speed and have someone yank your shirt at the neckline. There's much more danger for injury in that situation.

I don't understand the line of reasoning that there isn't any justification in the Laws to ever make this kind of action a sendoff. "Endangering safety" and "excessive force" don't have hard and fast definitions.
 
Not sure what my point was, but can't see shirt strangulation being graciously accepted on a Sunday morning. Quite likely, two dismissals will follow
Equally, could leave the Ref in a sticky spot if that happened in front of some kid's mum
Aggravated USB, when the ball is not within playing distance needs to made a dismissible offence (which it's not at the moment, by virtue of TV precedent, rather than Law). Otherwise we end up with Aggravated VC
I think his point is in that situation he doesn't just want to send off the retaliator.
I think I get his point more than he does. You can't just blanketly (I know Kes, that's not a word) say a shirt pull like that is a yellow or is a red. Context matters.

In the context of the one we saw it in I won't send off. But let's say it was in clear retaliation of the offender being on the receiving end of a hard physical tackle from the offended seconds earlier (the shirt pull had nothing to do with defending an attack), then for me that would very likely be an act of violent conduct.
 
I think I get his point more than he does. You can't just blanketly (I know Kes, that's not a word) say a shirt pull like that is a yellow or is a red. Context matters.

In the context of the one we saw it in I won't send off. But let's say it was in clear retaliation of the offender being on the receiving end of a hard physical tackle from the offended seconds earlier (the shirt pull had nothing to do with defending an attack), then for me that would very likely be an act of violent conduct.
I was thinking more along the lines of that type of play is not going to be as graciously accepted on a Sunday morning on hackney marshes, and a melee of some description is almost certain to ensue
 
I was thinking more along the lines of that type of play is not going to be as graciously accepted on a Sunday morning on hackney marshes, and a melee of some description is almost certain to ensue
For me that on its own doesn't justify a send off. There are many yellow card tackles/pushes/trips... which are not graciously accepted on a Sunday morning and cause a melee. That won't mean I would change them to a red.
 
For me that on its own doesn't justify a send off. There are many yellow card tackles/pushes/trips... which are not graciously accepted on a Sunday morning and cause a melee. That won't mean I would change them to a red.
Yes, but I mean what happens in the melee. Not because it caused one!!
 
I can't think of any context where it's good refereeing to upgrade a foul from yellow to red card because the other party has turned round and punched them? Punish a player more harshly because their opponent can't control themselves? What's the thinking behind that?
 
I can't think of any context where it's good refereeing to upgrade a foul from yellow to red card because the other party has turned round and punched them? Punish a player more harshly because their opponent can't control themselves? What's the thinking behind that?
I think the expectation is that the punched person is unlikely to just take the punch and is likely to also retaliate in some way.
 
I can't think of any context where it's good refereeing to upgrade a foul from yellow to red card because the other party has turned round and punched them? Punish a player more harshly because their opponent can't control themselves? What's the thinking behind that?
Nobody said that
But I think you can easily use "excessive force" under both SFP or VC to justify a send off here. It's one thing to pull someone's shirt near the waistline and not have it be excessive or endangering player safety. It's completely differen to be at speed and have someone yank your shirt at the neckline. There's much more danger for injury in that situation.

I don't understand the line of reasoning that there isn't any justification in the Laws to ever make this kind of action a sendoff. "Endangering safety" and "excessive force" don't have hard and fast definitions.
There's lots we could justify doing according to the book which would lead to a wonky observation
What we see on the tele holds more weight to what's in the book, especially when half of it is being secretly taught to higher level MO's (than me)
 
I want it to be a red card, and as I've said on here before I am harsh on challenges when there is zero attempt for the ball, like the Wales sending off, because that unnecessary contact is potentially dangerous. Think it is a push to say there is any danger here though, and even I with my tougher stance than many are finding it impossible to say a shirt pull is worthy of a red.

I saw this earlier and had to chuckle.

1626279857801.png
 
I want it to be a red card, and as I've said on here before I am harsh on challenges when there is zero attempt for the ball, like the Wales sending off, because that unnecessary contact is potentially dangerous. Think it is a push to say there is any danger here though, and even I with my tougher stance than many are finding it impossible to say a shirt pull is worthy of a red.

I saw this earlier and had to chuckle.

View attachment 5051

100% agree. It’s one of those that ‘feels’ wrong, it’s a true ‘professional foul’ but with the laws as they are, can’t see any justification for a send off.

Will be interesting to see how such a high profile incident in the showpiece game of a major international tournament then gets reflected (if at all) in any subsequent law changes.
 
I think the expectation is that the punched person is unlikely to just take the punch and is likely to also retaliate in some way.

I agree, in my experience when someone throws a punch in retaliation to a challenge it almost always ends up with at least two red cards. Even if the player who has been punched doesn't retaliate, it is highly likely at least one team mate won't.

Rightly or wrongly, if I view a challenge as orange and the fouled player reacts with VC that is swinging my view from yellow to red. If for no other reason I don't want the player that has caused the VC on the pitch to be targeted and potentially cause further problems. If he hasn't done anything wrong then I've no choice, but if he has given me an option to get rid of him then I'm not passing that up.
 
Lets not forget, we are in an English forum ;)

I can't think of any context where it's good refereeing to upgrade a foul from yellow to red card because the other party has turned round and punched them? Punish a player more harshly because their opponent can't control themselves? What's the thinking behind that?
You have the clear red, clear yellows, clear no cards and the in betweens. It is the in betweens that we are mostly talking about.

A few years back I had a game where no cards and only a handful of simple fouls all smooth sailing in first half. Early second half there was a careless but a deliberate trip of an opponent. I could put this under unspecified USB or just manage it. I expected a free kick and everyone gets on with it. So expected to have to manage it with a chat on the run given the prior context. However one nearby player (apparently the tripped player's brother) ran in and started throwing punches. The tripped player joins in. The opponent did not retaliate and only covered his face. It was a clear red for the brothers which was rightly served. The opponent also got a yellow. This would have been no card if the afters didn't happen.

Putting it in others words, the afters determine if you would apply a discount. Or where you draw the line within the range that the laws afford you.
 
I understand the concept - what I'm telling you is that I think it's weak refereeing. You're allowing the punishment to be changed by a poor response to it, which is nothing to do with the decision regarding what the correct punishment was in the first place.

Yes, some cards are orange and some like your example are....cream? And in those cases I understand that you can make a case either way and you can use to context of that match up until that point to guide that decision. But once you've made that decision and particularly once you've signalled it (in your case by not immediately stopping and going for a card), it's both bad practice and terrible optics to allow yourself to be pushed to upgrade it because an opponent overracted.

Far from trying to promote this as an approach, I think it's a failing that we should be trying to actively avoid where possible.
 
I understand the concept - what I'm telling you is that I think it's weak refereeing. You're allowing the punishment to be changed by a poor response to it, which is nothing to do with the decision regarding what the correct punishment was in the first place.

Yes, some cards are orange and some like your example are....cream? And in those cases I understand that you can make a case either way and you can use to context of that match up until that point to guide that decision. But once you've made that decision and particularly once you've signalled it (in your case by not immediately stopping and going for a card), it's both bad practice and terrible optics to allow yourself to be pushed to upgrade it because an opponent overracted.

Far from trying to promote this as an approach, I think it's a failing that we should be trying to actively avoid where possible.


Polar opppsite but same principle I think, I once had a u13 final between a traditionally difficult team and a well known reputable club.
Less than a min in, clearest DOGSO of all time, its red.
Well aware whats to come, and correct to fear the worst,
"he is only 12"
' its a minute played'
' course our guys off, would not expect anything else"
of course paraphrasing and the langauage was colourful.

Coach on park, parents on park, the lot, threatening to take team off and so on

Why? cos the referee correctly carried out the requirements in the book.

maybe in hindsight knowing what was to come I should have adjusted the correct call and made it one that would provoke a different reaction.
or maybe not
 
maybe in hindsight knowing what was to come I should have adjusted the correct call and made it one that would provoke a different reaction.
or maybe not

Nope. Learning to deal with people's responses is part of refereeing. Learning to bend the rules to give yourself an easy ride isn't.
 
Back
Top