Extremely Late 'Challenge'

GraemeS

Well-Known Member
#21
This reminds me of the sending off v Aston Villa from a few weeks ago. That was rescinded but I still maintain the argument that this endangers the player's safety - there is no intention to play the ball, given the momentum I think it's a very, very easy sell here.
How would it be any safer just because the ball was a foot away?
 

Trip

Well-Known Member
#22
It wouldn't have occurred to me to produce a red for that challenge. It's a cynical trip, it's not violent and the force is not excessive.

If you define any contact between players when the ball is not playable as 'excessive force' you would be very short or players very quickly.

I'd be interested to see a link to the IFAB/FA advice where they say this is a red?
 
#23
It wouldn't have occurred to me to produce a red for that challenge. It's a cynical trip, it's not violent and the force is not excessive.

If you define any contact between players when the ball is not playable as 'excessive force' you would be very short or players very quickly.

I'd be interested to see a link to the IFAB/FA advice where they say this is a red?
If a player trips another player who isn't on the ball would you only give a yellow for a cynical trip?
 

McTavish

Well-Known Member
#25
That's a red for me, he isn't making any attempt whatsoever to play the ball, and therefore any force is excessive.
And so by extension, would you RC a player for a push in the back which was designed to stop the opponent heading a ball coming towards him? No attempt to play the ball, just a way to prevent the opponent playing it and therefore any force is excessive...
 

RustyRef

Moderator
Staff member
#26
I'm not talking here about endangering safety, as I don't think it does. What I am saying is it is not an attempt to play the ball at all. PGMOL referees have definitely been told to sanction this as a red card offence, and there have been examples of this as I said before. Whether you class it as VC or SFP doesn't really matter, but if that was in the PL he would definitely be sent off.
 

alexgr

Active Member
#28
How would it be any safer just because the ball was a foot away?
If there is no ball to challenge for, surely any contact is therefore excessive. Even if the ball were there I’d still be leaning to a red tbh, think the speed, force and mode of contact all justify it
 

Trip

Well-Known Member
#29
PGMOL referees have definitely been told to sanction this as a red card offence
I'm curious about this. Is there some information in the public domain to corroborate that?

DOGSO is still a red card if there is a foul and no attempt to play the ball. You seem to be saying that *any* foul with no attempt to play the ball is a dismissal, is that right? Off the ball pushing? Shirt pulls?
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#30
I'm curious about this. Is there some information in the public domain to corroborate that?

DOGSO is still a red card if there is a foul and no attempt to play the ball. You seem to be saying that *any* foul with no attempt to play the ball is a dismissal, is that right? Off the ball pushing? Shirt pulls?

No, there wont be, unless you are a top level referee, observer, or you know one very well!
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#31
VC = Violent conduct correct? I don't personally see any real violence here! It's a trip to stop a promising attack, I don't see how proximity to the ball makes it any more or less violent?

Can I ask then, age old example of Beckham being sent off for England in the Simone incident. Did you see violence there? Violence? What Beckham did was an act of violence?

This clip cant be SFP as the ball is 6 to 8 yards away, meaning of all the things it is or could be, its not a tackle, i.e. A foul

Its a deliberate kick, at speed, with no attempt to play a ball. Which is violent conduct.
 

TopCat

Active Member
Level 7 Referee
#32
Chap who was on about 'what football expects other week' anyone who knows and understands the game understands that is a yellow card. Guy who commits the foul expects a yellow equally guy who is fouled expects a yellow. It's a yellow.
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#33
Oh well thats it then, some chap says its a yellow so thats that

Guy on commentory expects a red, so that trumps that for me


In your game do as you see fit, thats all you can ever do

As red as red can be for me
 

GraemeS

Well-Known Member
#34
Can I ask then, age old example of Beckham being sent off for England in the Simone incident. Did you see violence there? Violence? What Beckham did was an act of violence?

This clip cant be SFP as the ball is 6 to 8 yards away, meaning of all the things it is or could be, its not a tackle, i.e. A foul

Its a deliberate kick, at speed, with no attempt to play a ball. Which is violent conduct.
It's not a kick, it's a trip. The laws are very clear about those being two separate things (kicks or attempts to kick, trips or attempts to trip etc.) and it's part of our jobs as referees to be able to tell the difference. While I'm not totally ruling out the possibility of a trip being forceful or dangerous to the opponent's safety, I'm struggling to think of any way this could be the case without deliberately aiming the opponent towards another object.

And regardless of proximity to the ball, this isn't an act of violence with intent to hurt an opponent, it's a (un)sporting incident with the intent of stopping him getting to the ball. I accept the possibility that this could have been done in a dangerous manner that would have deserved a harsher sanction, but that didn't happen in this case. A caution for the cynical nature of the challenge is fine for me, I don't see the need to act as if this is more serious than that.

Citing Beckham is, if anything proving that point. His intent was to hurt the opponent - hence VC. In the clip above, the intent was to stop the opponent - hence SPA.
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#36
If a ref goes yellow for that, so be it.
I would go red without even batting an eyelid and nothing typed on here by anyone with limited knowledge no matter how well they try to dress it up, is going to alter that viewpoint
 

RustyRef

Moderator
Staff member
#37
It's not a kick, it's a trip. The laws are very clear about those being two separate things (kicks or attempts to kick, trips or attempts to trip etc.) and it's part of our jobs as referees to be able to tell the difference. While I'm not totally ruling out the possibility of a trip being forceful or dangerous to the opponent's safety, I'm struggling to think of any way this could be the case without deliberately aiming the opponent towards another object.

And regardless of proximity to the ball, this isn't an act of violence with intent to hurt an opponent, it's a (un)sporting incident with the intent of stopping him getting to the ball. I accept the possibility that this could have been done in a dangerous manner that would have deserved a harsher sanction, but that didn't happen in this case. A caution for the cynical nature of the challenge is fine for me, I don't see the need to act as if this is more serious than that.

Citing Beckham is, if anything proving that point. His intent was to hurt the opponent - hence VC. In the clip above, the intent was to stop the opponent - hence SPA.
I would argue the laws are only clear about those things being different when it involves a challenge for the ball. When the ball is that far away there is no challenge for the ball and instead you are simply looking at a player kicking an opponent.

Don't get me wrong, as an observer I would support either decision. I know that some have said that sending off would risk match control because a red card would be unexpected, but I would argue the other way. I actually think a red card would aid match control as there is a real chance players will want revenge for that challenge and they can't get it if the offender is back in the changing room. So, for all I've said I would back the referee either way, if the decision to caution led to the tempo of the game increasing and him losing control then I would certainly looking back to his original decision as a potential reason.
 

McTavish

Well-Known Member
#38
Can I ask then, age old example of Beckham being sent off for England in the Simone incident. Did you see violence there? Violence? What Beckham did was an act of violence?

This clip cant be SFP as the ball is 6 to 8 yards away, meaning of all the things it is or could be, its not a tackle, i.e. A foul

Its a deliberate kick, at speed, with no attempt to play a ball. Which is violent conduct.
No, it can't be SFP but that doesn't mean it has to be VC. It is a trip (ie a foul) and so can be careless, reckless or using excessive force. It can be nothing, yellow or red. In this instance it is obviously not careless but I don't think there is excessive force there - he has used just enough force to trip him up!

If the referee believes that the trip has endagered the safety of the opponent then of course it should be a red but the fact that the offender is not challenging for the ball is only relevant if you think that excessive force is being used and have to decide between SFP and VC otherwise there are all sorts of offences which would have to be RCs for VC - a push in the back before the ball is within playing distance, holding at corners, most shirt-pulling etc etc.
 

Ciley Myrus

I came in like a wrecking ball?
#39
a trip is classed as a trip when you make an attempt or failed attempt to tackle, as another poster has said
In this example there is no attempt to make an actual tackle so the stipulations for a trip are null and void

A push does not have to be violent conduct, nor is a shirt pull, but a blatent cynical at top speed kicking movement, which afterall a trip is, with the ball nowhere near playing distance, is violent conduct.
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
#40
a trip is classed as a trip when you make an attempt or failed attempt to tackle
Where in the laws of the game does it say this?
Answer: nowhere.

A trip is a trip ball in playing distance or not.

Each to their own as to what constitutes careless, reckless or excessive force but this should always fall within the framework of the lotg.

Reckless = acting with disregard to the danger to or consequences for the opponent which personally for me this falls into that category.[/QUOTE]