The Ref Stop

Manchester City vs Tottenham

I don't suppose malice aforethought might be a factor? I can't believe the debate is about a high foot (the situation wouldn't even have arisen if Kane hadn't done the old "his second touch is always a header" routine) rather than the injure an opponent intent of the Kane and Alli "tackles". Perhaps some comment might be on Danny Murphy's suggestion that Swansea hadn't got even a caution on the previous Wednesday and players "need to leave a foot in".
 
The Ref Stop
Padfoot said:
If you have a clear view of the high boot, it's clearly disregarding the safety of the opponent.......it's not like the opponent is stooping over to head the ball and the foot is at waist height......the foot is clearly intentionally placed at head height, coming from behind the player so they would have little or warning/opportunity to avoid.....sheer luck that no serious injury was sustained......if you feel that is reckless I'm guessing players have to lose limbs before you start considering SFP......

However, if you don't have a clear view, then I can see why a caution may seem the best outcome. But, with neutral assistants, and a 4th official there is no real excuse for not getting to the correct outcome as between the team, a clear view would have been achieved,
Click to expand...

Spot on Padfoot. I saw Bobby Zamora sent off for a kick to head that wasn't anywhere near the force used here - accidental or not shouldn't come into it.
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"

Sounds like a caution to me!
Click to expand...

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Click to expand...

Clearly a foot to the head endangers the safety of an opponent......and that is possible because the player disregarded the danger to his opponent.

However, it is possible to disregard the danger, but not endanger the safety of an opponent.....for example a challenge where the intended victim sees it coming and takes avoiding action.....the challenge still disregarded the danger but didn't endanger the opponent, hence it would be reckless.....the same challenge that isn't avoided and clatters the opponent is probably then SFP because it did actually endanger the safety.
Same applies here.....if there is no contact, then it's reckless and a caution....the second there is contact, it moves from being reckless to dangerous (endangering the safety etc) and must be sanctioned as SFP.

Simple really.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Soooooooo Ciley, and others, why didn't Mr Pawson deem the slight push in the back by Rose a penalty this week?:rolleyes:

Last week in the Liverpool v Everton game ANY contact was a pen I was told - same ref yesterday - different outcome?
Click to expand...


You will need to ask the man himself, I aint seen the clip yet. Nobody said ANY contact, they said, a push was a foul. Maybe the ref just does not like Liverpool
 
Mintyref said:
Takes little contact from a boot to a head for it to be excessive force, I know they're players, even more reason to protect what few brain cells they have..... they'll need them in later life..........
Click to expand...

The phrase is 'excessive force' Minty, if a force isn't that excessive then must surely be something else!!! Like endangering an opponent or something similar??
 
Padfoot said:
Clearly a foot to the head endangers the safety of an opponent......and that is possible because the player disregarded the danger to his opponent.

However, it is possible to disregard the danger, but not endanger the safety of an opponent.....for example a challenge where the intended victim sees it coming and takes avoiding action.....the challenge still disregarded the danger but didn't endanger the opponent, hence it would be reckless.....the same challenge that isn't avoided and clatters the opponent is probably then SFP because it did actually endanger the safety.
Same applies here.....if there is no contact, then it's reckless and a caution....the second there is contact, it moves from being reckless to dangerous (endangering the safety etc) and must be sanctioned as SFP.

Simple really.
Click to expand...


You are omitting the key factor here, Kane lowers his head onto the high boot
Some would say he endangered his own safety
Its reckless. But if you want to dismiss for that if in your opinion its SFP then thats the beauty of interpretation.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Soooooooo Ciley, and others, why didn't Mr Pawson deem the slight push in the back by Rose a penalty this week?:rolleyes:

Last week in the Liverpool v Everton game ANY contact was a pen I was told - same ref yesterday - different outcome?
Click to expand...

Because he didn't see it properly?
 
Ciley Myrus said:
You are omitting the key factor here, Kane lowers his head onto the high boot
Some would say he endangered his own safety
Its reckless. But if you want to dismiss for that if in your opinion its SFP then thats the beauty of interpretation.
Click to expand...

He doesn't lower his head onto the boot......he goes to head the ball and the boot hits him on the head.......the onus is on his opponent in that situation to act with due regard to his safety.

If he had lowered his head to waist level....you might have a point.....or even chest level....but he didn't....it was little more than a nodding motion towards the ball......the foot was excessively high and would have caught him on the head regardless of Kane's movement......albeit on the chin rather than the cheek......so still endangering the safety of an opponent.

And it's not "interpretation"....its called applying the LOTG correctly. There is no room to interpret it......unless of course you wish to bottle a red card?

But, as I have said right from the start.....if you have a clear view of it. A lone official on a Sunday morning is going to find that much harder than an Elite level referee with NAR's and a 4th official....which is why it is a poor decision from the team yesterday.
 
bloovee said:
I don't suppose malice aforethought might be a factor? I can't believe the debate is about a high foot (the situation wouldn't even have arisen if Kane hadn't done the old "his second touch is always a header" routine) rather than the injure an opponent intent of the Kane and Alli "tackles". Perhaps some comment might be on Danny Murphy's suggestion that Swansea hadn't got even a caution on the previous Wednesday and players "need to leave a foot in".
Click to expand...

Nope...."intent" is irrelevant.

If your challenge endangers the safety of an opponent, whether by design or by accident, it's still SFP.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Soooooooo Ciley, and others, why didn't Mr Pawson deem the slight push in the back by Rose a penalty this week?:rolleyes:

Last week in the Liverpool v Everton game ANY contact was a pen I was told - same ref yesterday - different outcome?
Click to expand...

He couldn't see it, he was looking straight into the front of Mangala, so unless he has x-ray vision there is no way he could see what Rose's hands were doing. Possible that the assistant could have helped, but it would be a brave assistant coming in from that far away, plus the replays showed that he may also have possibly been blocked off.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Thats scary, denying football a moment of pure technique and skill on the whim an opponent might be in the vicinity.
Thats not refereeing, thats destroying a sport as a spectacle for players and fans.
There is no leaway in the LOTG for where the actual "excessive" force takes place, head, arm, shin, stomach. So dont go making it up.
Click to expand...
Of course there is..........think about the diktat on head to head contact....
Excessive force has to consider the point of impact........
 
Ciley Myrus said:
You will need to ask the man himself, I aint seen the clip yet. Nobody said ANY contact, they said, a push was a foul. Maybe the ref just does not like Liverpool
Click to expand...

When you watch it, think you'll agree it was a push!

BTW as you can guess from my user name and previous posts I am NOT a Liverpool supporter!
 
There was another idiot on the Watford game, sludge tackle by the Watford captain Denney and he was anylising it to see if he got any of the ball, as if it really matters these days, it’s as if any touch may abscond him from any blame.
 
Last edited:
Sheffields Finest said:
There was another idiot on the Watford game, sludge tackle by the Watford captain Dennett and he was anylising it to see if he got any of the ball, as if it really matters these days, it’s as if any touch may abscond him from any blame.
Click to expand...

That drives me mad as well - the 'experts' do that all the time.
 
Its like they love the power of 25 cameras and they will trawl through them all just to prove someone wrong. Never used to happen, Sky started it with over-analysis of everything, its boring really!! They can't even call thing right technically when they find something!!!
 
I'm surprised that some think that since "deliberate" was dropped from the law on fouls that you can't make a disciplinary distinction between inadvertently endangering the safety of an opponent (there was a harsh second yellow yesterday for not much more than a trip - I don't recall which game) and setting out to injure an opponent. Intent is back on the agenda anyway with "genuine attempt to play the ball" in the DOGSO calculation.
 
bloovee said:
I'm surprised that some think that since "deliberate" was dropped from the law on fouls that you can't make a disciplinary distinction between inadvertently endangering the safety of an opponent (there was a harsh second yellow yesterday for not much more than a trip - I don't recall which game) and setting out to injure an opponent. Intent is back on the agenda anyway with "genuine attempt to play the ball" in the DOGSO calculation.
Click to expand...

"intent" is not back "on the agenda" for anything other that one offence.....certainly not for SFP.

It makes no difference whether a player intended to endanger the safety of their opponent, only that they did. Most players will claim they "didn't mean it" or it was an "accident"......should that change the colour of the card? Of course not......if you endanger the safety of your opponent you should be sent off.

What's worse? Knowing that the challenge you are about to make is dangerous to your opponent, but making it anyway, or not having a clue that what you are doing is dangerous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top