The Ref Stop

HAL - ball to the face - yellow or red?

The keeper has no reason for what he has done. His action is not part of challenging for the ball. His action is not part of the game. What he does is excessive force because it doesn't play any part in the game. It is VC all day long, all night long, all week long, all season long.
 
The Ref Stop
DB said:
The offence would be force, as you state. But the player has not been hurt, there is no cut, bruise, laceration, swelling or anything else that suggests this ball has been thrown at the players face with excessive force. That is unless the player has suffered internal bleeding or something, which I absolutely doubt.

There are two sides to this and I see your point in saying VC but you have to look at it from a different perspective. Players have an altercation, they have a push and a shove and nothing more, you know what I mean, the type you see in most games. Toys thrown out the prom. Now, these punches etc that you get are a lot more forceful than this ball yet the usual outcome for handbags is a stern talking to. If you are going to dismiss the keeper for excessive force, you have to be consistent in your approach and definition of the term "excessive" for the rest of the game. I can guarantee you that the game would be abandoned.
Click to expand...

So...how much force is necessary when throwing a ball in someone's face?
 
DB said:
It was a ball lightly tossed up into a players face. It wasn't a strike, it wasn't a throw with any aggression or power behind it. You see elbows, hands and all sorts hitting players faces a lot harder than that with sometime's no reprimand! Keeper was in the wrong. No doubt about that. But I would call it stupid over violent!

Yellow for the the ball in the face, yellow for the reaction... And a pat on the back for not falling on the floor like most of the primadonnas you see on to these days!
Click to expand...
It was a strike. It was VC.

Suppose a player threw a boot at an opponent from the same distance and it struck him in the face. Would you caution for that as well?
 
Strike or attempts to strike = red card. The force is irrelevant so it would be a red card from me.
I would be thinking red for the attempted head butt from the attacker too.
 
Throwing a boot and throwing a ball are two completely seperate things.

A boot has the ability to cause serious damage, no matter how hard it is thrown. They are different in shape, have edges and of course, studs. Those studs will very rarely be in a good condition and will 90% of the time have sharp edges. A boot could blind someone, cause serious injury and/or have other consequences. Obviously that would be a red all day long.

What's the worse that a ball, at this pace could do to a player? Dent his ego at best, which it obviously did judging by his reaction!
 
DB said:
Throwing a boot and throwing a ball are two completely seperate things.

A boot has the ability to cause serious damage, no matter how hard it is thrown. They are different in shape, have edges and of course, studs. Those studs will very rarely be in a good condition and will 90% of the time have sharp edges. A boot could blind someone, cause serious injury and/or have other consequences. Obviously that would be a red all day long.

What's the worse that a ball, at this pace could do to a player? Dent his ego at best, which it obviously did judging by his reaction!
Click to expand...

it's not about what the end result is, was or could be......the offence is the same no matter what object is thrown.
 
Then why did Brian feel the need to bring up a different object if that was the case?

The guy on this video was stupid. He had a schoolboy moment and acted like a nugget. You see a lot worse than that in every game on tv, you see worse than that in the games we officiate in. By sending him off, you'd be ruining the game for something that a yellow card and a stern talking to would have sorted.

Manage the game, manage the situation and let football be played. if anyone saw the interview with Howard Webb on BT Sport this weekend, he talks about this exact sort of thing and I completely agree with him. You have taken Robbie Savage's approach to this argument. If you haven't seen the interview, check it out.

I'm repeating myself now so will also leave my input on this post at that. Red card is harsh and ruins the game. Player doesn't go down holding his face, is clearly annoyed, not hurt and has his say. Confrontation follows and handbags, toys thrown around the area, ref has a word, cautions the players and gets on with the game. Correct thing to do imo.
 
Last edited:
@DB, whether or not he is hurt is irrelevant. The offence is Strike or Attempt to Strike, so even if no damage is done at all it can easily still be a RC. For me, a RC for this offence would simply be in keeping with the accepted norm these days which is that raising your hands to an opponent's face is strictly penalised, whereas contact elsewhere (say a shove in the chest) is often a YC.
 
DB said:
Then why did Brian feel the need to bring up a different object if that was the case?

This guy on this video was stupid. He had a schoolboy moment and acted like a nugget. You see a lot worse than that in every game on tv, you see worse than that in the games we officiate in. By sending him off, you'd be ruining the game for something that a yellow card and a stern talking to would have sorted.

Manage the game, manage the situation and let football be played. if anyone saw the interview with Howard Webb on BT Sport this weekend, he talks about this exact sort of thing and I completely agree with him. You have taken Robbie Savage's approach to this argument. If you haven't seen the interview, check it out.

I'm repeating myself now so will also leave my input on this post at that. Red card is harsh and ruins the game. Player doesn't go down holding his face, is clearly annoyed, not hurt and has his say. Confrontation follows and handbags, toys thrown around the area, ref has a word, cautions the players and gets on with the game. Correct thing to do imo.
Click to expand...

I'll probably get told off for this...but....this is a classic case where you are thinking more like a player than a referee....or allowing your playing side to overrule your referee side.

Whenever someone talks about a card 'ruining' a game invariably it involves a perfectly correct decision, but a decision which is unpopular.

Well....it's not our job to be popular. It's our job to enforce the LOTG, and if that means upsetting people and 'ruining' a game then so be it.
 
I can see the argument both ways, and I don't think the players or managers could have any complaint at either.

One thing I would say is I would have to give the same colour card to the GK and the striker for putting his head in keepers face.

Red for me on both - if not to teach the keeper a lesson to not be so stupid in the future.

You could argue it wasn't excessive force, you could argue any force was excessive.

Completely unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
Padfoot said:
I'll probably get told off for this...but....this is a classic case where you are thinking more like a player than a referee....or allowing your playing side to overrule your referee side.

Whenever someone talks about a card 'ruining' a game invariably it involves a perfectly correct decision, but a decision which is unpopular.

Well....it's not our job to be popular. It's our job to enforce the LOTG, and if that means upsetting people and 'ruining' a game then so be it.
Click to expand...
You are getting told off for this. Base your argument on law and not on whether someone is a player/ref/spectator or other.

When I hear you (I hear it through my minds ear eye) posting "well you're just thinking like a player" it just makes me think wow, he has no real basis for his point and is simply trying to troll and score points that way.

You're better than that padders. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
I can't believe anybody is even considering that it should anything other than red for the GK. VC all day long. Petulant, unnecessary and done with the deliberate intention to cause pain/discomfort to the other player. The fact that some are pleading leniency and only a yellow is astounding to me.
 
Let's see a video of it in real time. Slow motion makes everything look malicious.

:)
 
How many times have you thrown your balls in another mans face and they've just laughed it off?!? :D:hmmm: Or is that just the RAF?
 
SM said:
You are getting told off for this. Base your argument on law and not on whether someone is a player/ref/spectator or other.

When I hear you (I hear it through my minds ear eye) posting "well you're just thinking like a player" it just makes me think wow, he has no real basis for his point and is simply trying to troll and score points that way.

You're better than that padders. :)
Click to expand...

I've already made the argument, quite comprehensively, in law, but that has been dismissed out of hand.....largely because someone has looked at it from a players perspective and not a refereeing one.
The obvious clue being the accusation of 'ruining' a game by correctly applying the LOTG.

If you want us to be accepting of referees who are active players, there has to be an acceptance that this will cause debate about which side of the brain they are looking at a scenario with.
It's not a criticism merely an observation.

I'm fortunate enough that my playing days are such a distant memory that they don't cause me any confusion over what I am wearing black for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Do we not really see the fact people have played and now wear the black as an advantage?

I have played to a reasonable standard in the past and feel it helps me understand players mindset for that reason, doesn't mean I'm going to rewrite LOTG because of it.

Players expect we have played at some point - imagine a supervisor comes into work trying to show authority and you have absolutely no respect because he's never been in your shoes before?

Respect would = 0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
@Padfoot I understand your way of thinking. But, regardless of whether I've played before or reffed straight out of school, my argument would still be the same. If the ball was thrown any harder, I'd have shown the same colour as you.

There's no malice, no aggression, no intent to injure the player, it was one of those stupid moments where someone has acted without thinking. The player involved obviously isn't hurt by it. Yeah he's rattled but I would be aswell, hence his reaction. Keeper has been stupid, gets a talking to and a caution and both teams continue with the game.

I can guarantee you that if this incident will go to a board, the caution will stand with no further action taken by the authorities. If the keeper does get charged, I will personally get a T-Shirt saying "Pad is God" on it and wear it until the end of time, I'll also publicly declare my sincere regret for not agreeing with you on this occasion. I will be forever in your debt!
 
Last edited:
Padfoot said:
I've already made the argument, quite comprehensively, in law, but that has been dismissed out of hand.....largely because someone has looked at it from a players perspective and not a refereeing one.
The obvious clue being the accusation of 'ruining' a game by correctly applying the LOTG.

If you want us to be accepting of referees who are active players, there has to be an acceptance that this will cause debate about which side of the brain they are looking at a scenario with.
It's not a criticism merely an observation.

I'm fortunate enough that my playing days are such a distant memory that they don't cause me any confusion over what I am wearing black for.
Click to expand...
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools speak because they have to say something.
Plato

yes, I am quoting Plato at you (and DB as it happens). I'm not saying either of you are fools, just that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that continuing to argue a point despite already having made it to the limit of what you can put forward (and then in Padfoots case topping it off with the cream/cherry combo of a dig at DB still playing - DB's cream and cherry being caustic reply sarcasm), is kind of foolish.

Just agree to disagree. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top