A&H

Kicking the ball to a player's head while in play

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ref Jeff has phrased it as I intended.

I would like to see a red card and am thinking I would, but as I dont feel its an offence to kick a ball whilst its in play, we dont get to decide in which direction or how high a player chooses to kick a ball

To say its open and shut is ignorant.
 
The Referee Store
RefJef said:
To be fair, my interpretation is is that @Ciley Myrus would like to red card this (& would probably do so?) but is, quite rightly, asking do the LOTG support red card in this instance?

This is, I think, good reflective practice as it helps us all develop our understanding of the laws, and to also prepare ourselves should we find ourselves in a similar scenario: much better to have the discussion in the cool, calm rational refchat forum than on a pitch with tempers flairing.

I fully agree with the line re: violent conduct cited by @Padfoot above.

However, the LOTG are not as helpful as they might be on this - they specifically talk of "an object (or the ball) is thrown at an opponent ..." It could be argued, therefore, that by omission, kicking the ball at an opponent is not an offence. I am not saying that this would be my decision, but it is an argument that could be cited.

Another possibility: "Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone" This incident certainly falls under that category and is done with excessive force, so perhaps grounds for a Red, but... but .. the Careless/Reckless/Excessive Force all refer to direct free kicks, PIDAM results in an IDFK, so an anomaly there.

On my pitch, this is going to be a Red, using @Padfoot's rational from above, but I think it is an interesting question and I am interested to hear more experienced minds than mine give their thoughts (but in a calm, considered manner - tackle the argument, not the man!)
Click to expand...
The law already states it can’t cover every possible situation and for me this is one it does not directly cover. Debating on not being able to justify a send-off, rightly or wrongly gives the impression of lack of understanding what the game is about. So lets debate how a send-off can be justified (rather than can’t be justified). I think we all agree it should be send off (even Ciley I think). Its just a matter of justifying it

Lets start with VC. It required that no challenge for the ball is involved. In the context of the game of football a challenge for the ball is the action to dispossess an opponent, gain possession of it to achieve what the aim of the game is, to win (score more goals that the opposition). At the time the white player kicks the ball, there are no blue players around, he can control it and start an attacking movement. He has many teammates around him. Yet he chooses to kick it towards his own goal line very clearly deliberately into an opponent’s face. This to me is not a challenge for the ball. The challenge was completed a second or two earlier. It’s the use of the ball as a weapon to hurt an opponent. So for me VC is easily justified.

We know that the throwing an object (including the ball) with excessive force even when the ball is in play is a red card. Note that this does not exclude a goalkeeper who is legally allowed to throw the ball. It also does not exclude a Throw-in which is a legal move. Its VC if done with excessive force even if it would have otherwise been a valid play of the ball. We can use an almost identical argument for kicking the ball when in play here. The purpose of that kick was not to play the ball.

Even if we believe the player’s action was in fact a challenge for the ball a send off argument can be made. Law 12 clearly states if a player “tackles or challenges” an opponent using excessive force, it’s a red card. If this was a challenge it certainly used excessive force and its a send-off for SFP. But for me a VC is a far more accurate send-off reason.

In simple terms, if you think its a challenge then send off for SFP, if you think its not a challenge then send off for VC. take a pick.
 
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus said:
I dont feel its an offence to kick a ball whilst its in play,
Click to expand...
You could also say it's not an offence to swing your arm while playing football. However it is, if said arm is aimed at an opponent. In the same vein, while it's not an offence simply to kick the ball while it's in play, it is an offence (violent conduct) to kick it with excessive force directly into an opponent's face. You seem to be hung up on the fact that the ball was in play but there is nothing in the law saying that violent conduct can only occur when the ball is not in play.
Ciley Myrus said:
I would hope the LOTG support a red card.
My point was, do they?
Click to expand...
Yes, they do - @Padfoot has given chapter and verse from the law. What part of that definition of VC do you think precludes it from being a justification for a red card here?
 
“Interesting” debate. I’m still convinced that 8/10 referees would not be able to dismiss for this in real time as the white player has just kicked the ball forward - I think this is a more important point than whether “upon seeing a clear video can I justify red by law”. It would be so so hard to see what happened from the refs position. We are analysing this from a perfect camera angle where we can see the punk taunt the blue player after violently kicking a ball at his head. None of us have any doubt after watching the video that this was violent and on purpose. The AR needs to help the ref here but for my development it’s another good reason to make sure you stay mobile and close to play even with neutral ARs.
 
Peter Grove said:
You could also say it's not an offence to swing your arm while playing football. However it is, if said arm is aimed at an opponent. In the same vein, while it's not an offence simply to kick the ball while it's in play, it is an offence (violent conduct) to kick it with excessive force directly into an opponent's face. You seem to be hung up on the fact that the ball was in play but there is nothing in the law saying that violent conduct can only occur when the ball is not in play.

Yes, they do - @Padfoot has given chapter and verse from the law. What part of that definition of VC do you think precludes it from being a justification for a red card here?
Click to expand...



Very much aware of the requirements for VC thanks. Am saying I dont know if the referee gets to dictate where or how high or how hard a player kicks a ball when its in play. Given VC covers also attempting to strike, are you also sending him off for blasting ball at oponent and missing?
 
I think @one sums it up perfectly. The laws state that it cant cover every eventuality. It then tells us as referees what we should do.

"The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within
the ‘spirit’ of the game – this often involves asking the question, “what would
football want/expect?"

So @Ciley Myrus Ciley here is the answer to your question. The LOTG clearly would support a red card here. Is this players action in the spirit of the game? No. Would football expect a red card here? I would say yes. Whilst there is some debate about how as a referee we could apply the lotg to "justify" a red we all agree it should be. I think that is conclusive enough as at the end of the day we are all football fans as well as referees so we are well placed to make that judgement.

In answer to your last post I think if iootr that the player kicked the ball with excessive force in an attempt to strike an opponent then yes this should also fall into the category of VC.

There might be times when a similar occurrence happens where this type of outcome is incidental. However I think in the clip this is a clear act of brutality towards the opponent. @Padfoot has given the dictionary definition of brutality however the lotg has its own. "An act that is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent" I think that is a text book definition of what we see in the clip.
 
Credibility? Try not giving a red card here and talk to me about your credibility.

Just make the right decision and stop using 'credibility' to justify it. Credibility will sort itself out when you make the right decision.

It's clearly excessive. I can accept that sometimes a player on the ground may cop a ball kicked hard at close range purely unintentional and that's when it gets tricky. You use cues such as the player's manner in try to determine if it was violent. For instance, going from standing still to kicking the way he did after looking right at the player on the ground - that's clearly a violent attack. Not to mention that him kicking the ball in that direction most definitely wasn't part of normal play - it makes no sense for him to have done so.

One can only assume from @Ciley Myrus ' response that padfoot is being his usual bullying, condescending, unconstructive self.

The question of 'how can you justify violent conduct while the ball is in open play'

I ask you - why would you argue that you can't?

Kicking the ball hard can become a red card in some scenarios. Yet the kick is perfectly normal, excusable play - every reason to be kicking the ball in the manner they were; just so happened there was a leg in the way.

Is turning around and kicking the ball into somebody's head in the fashion seen really any different? Players are expected to act with due care to their opponents. That law doesn't get waived just because they're utilising the object that's the focus of the game. We give some leeway because being hit with the ball is natural, but we use our understanding of the game and player behaviour to know when to draw the line.

If you think the LOTG state you can't, the I challenge you to find anything in the LOTG which states or even implies that you can't. If you can't, then perhaps the LOTG doesn't state you can't.

To flip that, can you really argue that these actions don't fall within the guidelines for SFP or VC (I believe it's SFP)? They do - the laws are deliberately open enough that we can include a wide range of actions. If you think the laws say you can't give a red here then you need to reread the laws :)

Mooseybaby said:
Am I right in thinking the AR flags for a throw to the the team in White?

Player in White could have kicked that ball anywhere, instead decided to kick it with force at a grounded opponent a only few feet away.

Red card all day long!
Click to expand...

Interesting point on the mechanics. I think for something like this it's right for the AR to want the ref to make the decision on the foul - but the AR should be using eye contact to determine if he should be flagging. Now the AR has lost credibility because it looks like he's had no problem with it - when he may well have, just left the decision for the ref (given he had a clear view)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
WilliamD said:
“Interesting” debate. I’m still convinced that 8/10 referees would not be able to dismiss for this in real time as the white player has just kicked the ball forward -
Click to expand...
1) I'm pretty sure he's kicked it backwards - white is defending here, I'm sure. So he's gone in the complete opposite direction to where you'd expect him to. Even if he was kicking it out he isn't going to do that
2) Even if he was attacking he's not going to be booting the ball there. The field position here actually makes it exceptionally obvious that this wasn't a natural playing position. If it was in the middle of the field, we'd have a harder time of it. Of course, you'd also use the fact that he's taunted him afterwards as an indicator that it was an attack rather than, say, a failed attempt to lift the ball over him. And ultimately, the LOTG neither state nor imply that using the ball as the object to strike while the ball is in play means VC or SFP hasn't occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Definite red card for VC, but as Ciley says, I'd be expecting to have fun explaining it to the white team, and would possibly end up sending other players as well. The blue team would be bemused because it's what football wants but it's not what the players expect. I know we get that every game but I think this one is more unexpected from a player's view point than most.

Years ago I sent a player off for an offence that was as dangerous as this one. I had all sorts of hassle with the offenders team and the victim's team felt it was morally right but didn't expect it. The away team gave me loads of grief because they felt hard done by. At the end of the game the home team told me "if you don't want to put that one in we won't report it!" They really didn't understand why I'd sent the opposing player off, even though their player had left in an ambulance. They felt it was just part of the game because the ball was in play. I had to tell one of the home team to walk away because at the end of the game he walked up to shake my hand but told me "I thought the red card was really harsh. I'm a referee and you got that one wrong!" He wasn't accepting that it could be a red card in those circumstances and almost talked himself into a red card of his own.

I think that's why there didn't appear to be the uproar that I'd expect from a two-footed challenge or similar, even though this is potentially more serious.
 
It’s defintey ticks all of he boxes for VC, and we all know intent doesn’t come into it.

But it would be an exceptionally difficult decision to sell at any level.

Not that that would be an excuse not to dismiss the player, but it is easy for us to sit here and analyse the video with the benefit of multiple replays and no players etc trying to chip in.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Given VC covers also attempting to strike, are you also sending him off for blasting ball at oponent and missing?
Click to expand...


On a somewhat lighthearted note, In the past, I have done the reverse ...

“Coaching” a group of schoolboys, for a reason that escapes me, the ball was “dead” and needed to go from one side of the pitch to the other.

Lad picks it up and hoofs it ... striking me on the back of the head. Blummin’ painful!!

Initially rather peeved, I was about to boll*ck said boy, when I realised that, had he meant to hit me on the head with ball from 20 yards, he would have missed. If he was good enough to have hit me deliberately, he wouldn’t have been in my group of no hopers and sporting illiterates.
 
For all the nuances of the book of words, and whether it's correct in Law or not. This is clearly Violent Conduct all day long, and clearly a RC! Just ask yourself how wrong would you feel if you didn't issue it?
 
zarathustra said:
But it would be an exceptionally difficult decision to sell at any level.

.
Click to expand...

markref said:
Definite red card for VC, but as Ciley says, I'd be expecting to have fun explaining it to the white team, and would possibly end up sending other players as well. The blue team would be bemused because it's what football wants but it's not what the players expect. I know we get that every game but I think this one is more unexpected from a player's view point than most.
Click to expand...

Is it?
You have a player lying motionless on the ground from what was clearly a premeditated act. You have 2 players from the victim's team who are trying to have words with the player who did it, and several players from the opposing team who are trying to start a mass confrontation. And the crowd in an uproar.

Do you seriously think that a red card is the more difficult to sell option in this particular instance? Sure, in other instances it may well be, but not in this one. The White team know it was an act of aggression because they used it to launch a mass confrontation. The blue team are upset about it as well, although they're not getting aggro....yet. I think everything we see here shows us that 1) the red card will be expected. May be heavily protested, yes, but people know what happened and want the ref to take appropriate action and 2) the game needs the red card or else it will completely blow up and 3) The player who did it desperately needs a red card given he's basically committed an act of assault on an opponent's head.

Sure, the white team are going to claim innocence and 'he was just kicking the ball' and all that nonsense, but so what? Is that actually any different to the desperate protests at any other red card?

On a side note, let's analyse the refereeing team's responses here.

We've already criticised the AR going for a throw in - but I argued before that I think he's wanted the referee to decide whether or not a foul has occurred. Either the referee hasn't recognised that an offence has occurred, or he was in turn wanting the AR to decide if a foul has occurred. As such, not seeing anything to indicate the the ref doesn't want a throw-in, the AR has signalled a throw in. And perhaps the referee actually signalled the throw first (although I'm sceptical of this). The ref only blew his whistle once the confrontation started.

If you recognise the foul here, you need to get on your whistle hard, and get over there fast with your card ready to go.

Given the AR can reach the crisis point faster than the ref here, I'd want to have seen that AR intervening a bit faster and coming onto the field.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top