Me too, thought he deserved to go further
Euros
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
- Status
Me too, thought he deserved to go further
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Josh - The guidance point is that if you disagree with a decision, try to explain your reasoning on the forum to make replies easier for contributors.. In this case, the offence was 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. Excessive force is not needed for SFP.
So, let's use the whole section here...
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.
Then also note that the definition of excessive force from a couple of pages earlier basically encompasses that:
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.
So yes, SFP does require excessive force and yes, IFAB is once again guilty of some pretty poor editing.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
So, let's use the whole section here...
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.
Then also note that the definition of excessive force from a couple of pages earlier basically encompasses that:
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.
So yes, SFP does require excessive force and yes, IFAB is once again guilty of some pretty poor editing.
While I completely agree that IFAB needs a #@$@# copy editor, I think the use "or" in a couple of places makes clear that SFP doesn't always require significant force. But it is the normal variety of SFP. It doesn't take a lot of force, say, if directed at a knee or head. That is certainly not an argument that force doesn't matter, but I do think there is leeway for the referee to determine that certain behavior endangers the safety of an opponent without getting sidetracked into a discussion about force. For example a slide tackle at the knee level doesn't have to have excessive force for a normal slide tackle to be SFP for endangering an opponent. Going over the ball into the knee with the ordinary force of a slide tackle is SFP because it endangers the safety of an opponent.
Unfortunately, the way IFAB writes makes it very difficult to simply parse language to get good answers in some cases. We need to also pay attention to other guidance and explanations. Trying to define SFP in a comprehensive way in a couple of sentences is really hard. It reminds me of US Supreme Court Justice Potter who famously declared that he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
So, let's use the whole section here...
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.
Then also note that the definition of excessive force from a couple of pages earlier basically encompasses that:
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.
So yes, SFP does require excessive force and yes, IFAB is once again guilty of some pretty poor editing.
I don't think so.
The wording clearly separates "excessive force" and endangering an opponent's safety.
They can both amount to SFP in their own right but SFP isn't exclusively "excessive force".
I think that you're both missing the point...
The definition of excessive force is "when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent" and the definition of SFP is "[...] excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent"
If you put in the definition of excessive force into the SFP sentence, you get:
"when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent or endangers the safety of an opponent"
The point is simply that excessive force is not JUST exceeding the necessary use of force... it is an and/or with "endangers the safety of an opponent" and that endangerment makes it, by definition... "excessive force".
But... back to where we were after this logical/grammatical sidetrack.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
You argue the point well Alex but your use of "if" is key.
We'll have to agree to disagree ...
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
To the extent your point is that SFP requires excess force because excess force doesn't actually require force, well, we'll just go back to IFAB needs a #$%$% copy editor . . . focusing on excess force rather than also endangering an opponent does more to confuse than elucidate
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
elsewhere saw it explained that it was related to holding down the com system wiring somehow
It's hard to quantify because nothing has been "wrong" as such, but standards are higher than that for someone who has been rated as one of the 3 best refs in Europe. His individual decision making has been fine, but it's his management of the players that has been lacking for me so far.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Not saying they've been needed but cards. Do the referees no longer give cards for trips and pulls?
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
When Brych is on his game (as I thought he was here), his communication and management are very good. He looked very confident today when dealing with players. No doubt he was helped by the score line for much of the game in terms of lack of s***housery, but he was much more like the Felix Brych I'm used to seeing today.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
My sense is that he knew this could heat up and wanted to be careful about setting bars--an early card could set a stage for a card fest, which UEFA doesn't want and he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who set the record for cards in a semi. So there wasn't going to be a soft caution--someone was going to have to earn it. As we get into the second half, that risk declines, and he feels more of a need to show a level of control without throttling down the match. Putting aside whether we can argue that a few plays "should have been" cards in a vaccuum, it seemed to me that he found the right balance between flow and control for this match. And the story is going to be all about the players and the play, not the ref or the VAR. I think the powers that be are quite satisfied and feel they put the right guy in the middle for this one.
- Status