A&H

EVE Vs SOU

The Referee Store
I'm not at all convinced it was an accidental tangle, but even if it was that can only be a red card for SFP.
I'm happy enough with a red card because I think there may have been some intent. I can't ever see myself equating 'disregard to player safety' or 'excessive force' with accidental however. Digne's second bite of the cherry is what influences me here. Makes it much less likely that 'accident' factored
 
Yeah, that's baffling. What's the basis or precedent for the idea that they accept it was SFP, but that a 3 match ban is "clearly excessive" for this particular incident of SFP?
At the higher levels of the game (i.e. Step 3/4 and above, where discipline is dealt with by The FA and not the County FAs), in addition to wrongful dismissal claims clubs also have the option to submit a claim that the standard punishment for a sending off offence would be excessive, in which case they would submit any evidence in support of their claim and a disciplinary commission makes a decision accordingly.
 
At the higher levels of the game (i.e. Step 3/4 and above, where discipline is dealt with by The FA and not the County FAs), in addition to wrongful dismissal claims clubs also have the option to submit a claim that the standard punishment for a sending off offence would be excessive, in which case they would submit any evidence in support of their claim and a disciplinary commission makes a decision accordingly.
I'm sure you can guess where I'm going with this, but I find that wildly inconsistent with the idea that bans can't be applied post-match for incidents the referee has seen.

If that wasn't SFP then the referee wouldn't have shown a red card - but it was, so he did, and the VAR didn't overrule it, so surely that should then be dealt with as such? Yet for some reason, it's appropriate to undermine the referee on this occasion.
Conversely, when a GK flies crotch-first into an opposing defender's knee, taking him out for the season, the argument is made that the referee has seen it and decided to take no action and so that's the end of it.

I don't really understand how both of the above can be true?
 
Hmm. No one makes money from players sitting out games....

But I don’t know that it undermines the ref to reduce the suspension from three to one—it’s still upholding the send off. (Here in the US, I believe MLS may be the only professional league where the standard supension for SFP is only one game-but can be increased.)
 
I’m comfortable with this sliding-scale approach to SFP. It allows some latitude so the most serious are punished in a way that reflects the severity - the worst,the really really nasty ones get 3 or more games, while those that arguably are more than a caution (orange to coin a phrase) get a lesser suspension.

At lower levels I’ve known similar with Violent Conduct. A swing and a miss is still sanctioned the same way in a game but drew 2 games whereas a punch that landed got three. A violent head butt got 6. Same offence, punishment adjusted to fit.

I’d be far more concerned if it was overturned entirely or the godawful fudge we’ve had before of the red card standing, but no suspension applied. Memory fails me of who it was. Fairly certain it was English domestic football -not Raheem Sterling before the 2014 World Cup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Hmm. No one makes money from players sitting out games....

But I don’t know that it undermines the ref to reduce the suspension from three to one—it’s still upholding the send off. (Here in the US, I believe MLS may be the only professional league where the standard supension for SFP is only one game-but can be increased.)

I wonder if it makes sense for SFP and VC red cards at this level (EFL, MLS, etc.) to have some sort of outside review process to determine the length of the suspension as opposed to saying "any SFP or VC is a standard three-game suspension". While I am in favor of the minimum three-match bans for SFP and VC as a deterrent for safer play, I could see that perhaps a minimum 8% of the season ban could result in fewer red cards (note that it shouldn't, but it could). In the United States, college referees have a categorization of violent behavior where "violent behavior II" is a two-match ban and "violent behavior I" is a one-match ban.

At the high-professional level, there would be a somewhat limited number of SFP and VC reds that a disciplinary committee could review to have a tiered system of suspensions. This would allow referees to have no concern about the level of the suspension and they can just officiate the match (note that this may be happening, but again human nature is interesting sometimes).

Perhaps there's a way that the "base" suspension for SFP and VC at the professional level is two games with the ability to reduce or add based on the severity of the incident. Or we just continue with the three-match ban, which I can easily support to hopefully keep that deterrent of dangerous/violent play within the game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Back
Top