A&H

Luiz headbutting Jiminez

deusex

deusex

RefChat Addict
I forgot to post this at the time but it just popped back into my head when I realised Jiminez is still injured.
Why are you allowed to launch yourself head first into an opponent's head and put them in a hospital bed?
With any other part of your body we're all agreeing this is a red card.
You cannot tell me this is not endangering the safety of an opponent. Yet NOONE is asking for a red card (except me I guess).
Odd considering how we're expected to stop the game whenever a player goes down clutching his head.
 
The Referee Store
personally i think it's just an unfortunate football incident, one that can happen with 2 players challenging for a header anywhere on the pitch

foul for sure, anything more? not for me
 
deusex said:
With any other part of your body we're all agreeing this is a red card.
Click to expand...

Because no part of your body should be up there? If your fist is up there it’s a red, because you can’t play the ball like that. From memory both players are entitled to go for it.

I'm not sure I can get on board with the idea of showing cards based on the level of injury.
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
It was just an aerial challenge for the ball and a total accident.
Click to expand...

There is no challenge. Luiz flies head first into an opponent.
Many accidents are still red cards. I don't think Luiz intended to split Jiminez's head open
 
deusex said:
There is no challenge. Luiz flies head first into an opponent.
Many accidents are still red cards. I don't think Luiz intended to split Jiminez's head open
Click to expand...

Not for me, and Coady could just have easily caused the injury / received the injury. When the ball is crossed into the area and players throw themselves at it to try and clear it or score a goal it is inevitable that there will be injuries. Thankfully serious injuries like this are few and far between, but unless heading is banned from the game it will always be a risk.

1611181928691.png
 
QuaverRef said:
The injury shouldn’t be a consideration
Click to expand...
I disagree. It shouldn't be a criteria/determinant but it should be a consideration given safety is a criteria and injury and safety are very closely related. In other words, not giving due attention to safety often causes injury although not all injuries are cause by not giving due attention to safety.
 
one said:
I disagree. It shouldn't be a criteria/determinant but it should be a consideration given safety is a criteria and injury and safety are very closely related. In other words, not giving due attention to safety often causes injury although not all injuries are cause by not giving due attention to safety.
Click to expand...
True, but the injury doesn’t always define the action. Focus to much on the injury after the incident and you start to doubt whether you’ve seen the incident correctly. Son breaking Gomes leg is a key example of this
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
QuaverRef said:
True, but the injury doesn’t always define the action. Focus to much on the injury after the incident and you start to doubt whether you’ve seen the incident correctly. Son breaking Gomes leg is a key example of this
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. There is a a difference in saying don't focus too much on the injury and it does not define the action which I agree with, and in saying don't consider it which I don't agree with.
 
'Disregards safety'... 'Endangers opponent'
Terms like these infer 'likely injury'. If an Injury results from a challenge which may involve these statements, I fail to see how the circumstanstial evidence of 'injury' can be ignored. Besides, we'll account for the injury subconsciously, even if we 'think' have not
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top