RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Even in this photo, Danielson is in a dangerous spot. Right leg is locked, no support on his back leg. He’s left himself out of bodily control.
Euros
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
- Status
Kuipers' reds always come from his chest pocket, no wallet to be found though
Yes. That's exactly what he's supposed to do.
It's the same as the Croatian elbow last week - the question asked then was "is he supposed to not use his arms to jump? Don't people realise that means you can't jump as high?" To which, the answer is that you can use your arms all you like, up until the point an opponent's face is in the way.
Similarly here, he has 2 choices: 1) Play the ball and risk breaking an opponent's leg or 2) Not play the ball, stay on his feet and then challenge for it after the bounce. As soon as you choose option 1, you open up the possibility that you'll be sent off.
The Irish Times had a comment on that Portugal v Belgium game:
"The rules are supposed to be there to protect players from injury and to prevent egregious and cynical foul play. VAR has created a culture where micro-events, initially missed by the referee and most of the players, can be gamed into match-deciding penalties and red cards, while at the same time many obviously dangerous fouls continue to go unpunished.
"The distinction between what is punished and what isn’t continues to be quite arbitrary, only now referees no longer have their eternal alibi: I did not see the incident. The game is now governed by an infuriating mix of traffic warden pedantry and incomprehensible official blindness."
www.irishtimes.com
"The rules are supposed to be there to protect players from injury and to prevent egregious and cynical foul play. VAR has created a culture where micro-events, initially missed by the referee and most of the players, can be gamed into match-deciding penalties and red cards, while at the same time many obviously dangerous fouls continue to go unpunished.
"The distinction between what is punished and what isn’t continues to be quite arbitrary, only now referees no longer have their eternal alibi: I did not see the incident. The game is now governed by an infuriating mix of traffic warden pedantry and incomprehensible official blindness."
Ken Early: How can anybody think VAR is an improvement?
Belgium win over Portugal will be remembered for violent play and poor refereeing
I mean....I get that you're looking to make a point about that other tackle on KdB, but I'm afraid other than the fact they both occurred "during a football match", I don't see the connection between the two challenges.
And I'm not a proponent of the idea of red cards for that kind of challenge anyway; as BTW, is also the case in that article you link - even in that, the argument is that the Portugal player who fouled KdB should already have been on a yellow, not that they should have received red for that tackle in isolation. We should not be getting in the habit of changing decisions based on outcome.
The tackle we're discussing is a dangerous tackle that resulted in an injury and should be sanctioned with red. The tackle you're trying to being into the discussion is a less-dangerous tackle that unfortunately happened to result in an injury - those are not the same thing and should not receive the same sanction.
And I'm not a proponent of the idea of red cards for that kind of challenge anyway; as BTW, is also the case in that article you link - even in that, the argument is that the Portugal player who fouled KdB should already have been on a yellow, not that they should have received red for that tackle in isolation. We should not be getting in the habit of changing decisions based on outcome.
The tackle we're discussing is a dangerous tackle that resulted in an injury and should be sanctioned with red. The tackle you're trying to being into the discussion is a less-dangerous tackle that unfortunately happened to result in an injury - those are not the same thing and should not receive the same sanction.
If it "happened to result in an injury" it wasn't less dangerous, was it? Palhinha is off the ground - how is that not a lunge from behind endangering an opponent?
(For younger readers, the lunge definition is from when IFAB made any tackle from behind a red-card offence as inherently dangerous. That prompted questions over why a frontal studs-up tackle wasn't similarly punished, and we ended up with the present lunge from any direction wording.)
I thought the Swedish challenge was unfortunate. The player was merely trying to win a ball that was off the ground with a 'normal clearance'. The follow through was just one of those things. That said, the safety of the opponent was clearly endangered so there was no choice but to dismiss
What does dismay me however, is Referee's (in the game and on the forum) obsessions with freeze frames and slow motions. When will people realize that this way of looking at things brings nothing to the table. We either see red in real-time, or VAR shows a real-time replay from another angle that shows the R (and the rest of us) that a C&O mistake has been made. That's not happening as it should at the moment
What does dismay me however, is Referee's (in the game and on the forum) obsessions with freeze frames and slow motions. When will people realize that this way of looking at things brings nothing to the table. We either see red in real-time, or VAR shows a real-time replay from another angle that shows the R (and the rest of us) that a C&O mistake has been made. That's not happening as it should at the moment
I get what you are saying, but imagine being on the other end of that challenge.
Not such a problem for our elite players but, a grassroots player on the other end of a similar challenge then can't go to work the next day coz his legs snapped in two. Just one of those things? I'm not sure I agree with that and subscribe to how @GraemeS puts it. He has to take enough care of win the ball cleanly and not almost break his opponents leg.
Agree it should be seen in real time BUT point of contact it specifically says to use freeze or slo mo. I don't think the freeze or slo mo enhance the severity of this challenge in anyway.
You show him where he catches him, then show the force at full speed the only outcome is a salutation, and it's not a hello.
It's primarily an accident IMO
These things happen
Any player who does not commit to clearing that ball (despite being off the ground) is not playing competitively (and won't make the grade)
That said, the opponent was clearly endangered, so I have no issue with the dismissal because there has to be a balance between injury caused by competitive play and a deterrent against causing accidents by not acting with precaution
I stress, I have no issue with the dismissal, but I've played for a lot more years than I've refereed, so I still see things a lot from the playing perspective
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I missed it in real time but the re-play in real time made me immediately say red card.
Clearly accidental as most fouls are, but you can’t go flying into challenges like that.
Clearly accidental as most fouls are, but you can’t go flying into challenges like that.
Then I think, largely, we are making the same point.
The "it's one of those things" lead me to think you had some opposition to the dismissal.
I think from a player perspective your opinion of that challenge changes dependent on which side you are on imo.
Yes, I don't mean to downplay an incident in which a player may have been seriously injured, I'm just offering a different view on things
@socal lurker recommended (a few days ago) the book, 'The Art of Refereeing'. That book has a common theme of seeing things from the player's (and the wider audience) perspective and how that's part of the art of refereeing. I think a lot of Referees are trained to see things from a perspective that nobody else understands... and that makes for poor refereeing
These slo-mo's and snap-shots feed into that mantra of not seeing things for what they are
One tackle is innately very dangerous with a very high risk of causing injury. The other is much less dangerous, with a much lower chance of causing injury. What actually ended up happening doesn't change that description.
I get that you have a club-related interest in seeing anyone who hurts KdB punished, but your blue-tinted specs are getting in the way of the actual refereeing discussion here. The two challenges are not comparable in risk, in force or in likelihood of injury, and therefore they should not recieve comparable punishment. You are comparing apples and oranges (or cherries and lemons) here. Again, even the article you came up with to try and make your point with doesn't actually think that was a red for the KdB challenge!
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Point of contact is a key factor in the determination of SFP vs a reckless challenge. I'm with you that stills or slo-mos are not good for other factors, but point of contact sometimes needs things slowed down.
Hypothetically speaking, the crew could say "everything else about this says SFP, but I need to see where the contact happened." I believe that in the US, MLS/PRO state that slow-mos are only supposed to be used to identify point of contact. I can support that use.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
This challenge definitely got a lot of discussion on a US-based referee forum. Many of us commenting also said this was SFP.
It's what the VAR protocol says:
• The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but,
in general, slow-motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g. position of
offence/player, point of contact for physical offences and handball, ball out of
play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’
of an offence or to decide if it was a handball offence
- Status