Manchester derby
- Thread starter David F
- Start date
- Status
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Anthony - The gift that keeps on giving! Sits on the sidelines sulking he's not on the pitch, comes on and only thing he does is show his manager he doesn't deserve a place in the team by trying to get himself sent off with his petulance!
Was the referee "managing the event" thus avoiding headlines like "City outclass 10 man neighbours"?
Was the referee "managing the event" thus avoiding headlines like "City outclass 10 man neighbours"?
Last edited:
I’m with es on this one. I think it merits violent conduct. Hes clearly not challenging or attempting to challenge for the ball.
Challenge under the ifab glossary
however as you say its still the same outcome. Thought it was clearly excessive
He was clearly competing and contesting for the ball when it happened but even still, generally, if the ball is around then SFP is sufficient.
Brutality = an act that is deliberately violent. No point that being in SFP if we just categorise anything that's violent as VC
So if a similar thing happened in a Saturday morning game and an observer asked for an explanation, how would you be expected to answer? SFP? VC? Or either provided the explanation was good enough?
I respectfully disagree on the first part but its potatoe potato stuff
It's not potato, potatoe stuff. It's important to accurately report the incident as it happened and for the correct offense. If the ball is in the vicinity of play, and the incident occurred in a way that looks like a footballing play but which was brutal and excessive, then it's SFP. In other words, if a player makes what looks like a slide tackle, and the ball is in the area where a slide tackle could reasonably be made, then it's SFP. If the player made a slide tackle and the ball was nowhere near, it's VC. If the ball is on the ground at the player's foot and the opponent punches him in the face, it's VC.
Its potato potatoe stuff in regards to the sanction being the same. The only difference being us referees discussing on a referee forum if we believe it to be SFP or VC
No, it matters for your admin and your observers marks. Trust me, it's important.
I feel you’ve misunderstood my potato remark
I don't really agree with your characterisation of what constitutes SFP. SFP requires a challenge, which is an action competing for the ball.
If the person just goes and wallops someone with the intention of walloping them, and intending in fact not to challenge for the ball, then that is no longer SFP and we're in different territory.
The question of playing distance is only an evidentiary question - you still have to determine whether the action is a challenge or simply an act of brutality.
Also, SFP does not require anything brutal
(
Brutality = an act that is deliberately violent.
You can still use excessive force when not challenging for the ball that is not brutality
You are looking at the headline,.rather than the definition. Which the differences between the two is "when challenging for the ball", endangering safety of opponent, and SFP can only be committed against an opponent.
That's the only distinction. The Antony one, happens whilst, albeit poorly, whilst they are competing / contesting the ball, therefore the brutality (deliberately violent act) still falls within the SFP threshold.
Opponent > challenging > brutality.
There probably are some outliers, where the act is egregious and there was never any intention or challenge for the ball but the vast majority where the ball is in the vicinity are should be viewed as SFP. Also remember we are not required to judge the intention of the offender, however obvious.
SFP does not require anything brutal, but neither does violent conduct.
Brutality = an act that is deliberately violent.
You can still use excessive force when not challenging for the ball that is not brutality
You are looking at the headline,.rather than the definition. Which the differences between the two is "when challenging for the ball", endangering safety of opponent, and SFP can only be committed against an opponent.
That's the only distinction. The Antony one, happens whilst, albeit poorly, whilst they are competing / contesting the ball, therefore the brutality (deliberately violent act) still falls within the SFP threshold.
Opponent > challenging > brutality.
There probably are some outliers, where the act is egregious and there was never any intention or challenge for the ball but the vast majority where the ball is in the vicinity are should be viewed as SFP. Also remember we are not required to judge the intention of the offender, however obvious.
Last edited:
I was only addressing where brutality fits in because RyantheRef seemed to be suggesting it was an element of SFP. It didn't form part of my argument
I don't read Law 12 as splitting hairs - I read it as capturing all possibilities. If the conduct is egregious and violent, the game wants that conduct sanctioned appropriately.
Out of interest, do you lot have to submit reports for VC/SFP?
That is a finding of fact over which reasonable referees might disagree
If we're determining whether a player was making a challenge we need to determine if they were contesting for the ball or whether their actions were aimed at something else. This is, squarely, an assessment of their intention, whether you want to call it that or not. The position of the ball is mere evidence of that intention. Sure, if you think they might not have been challenging for the ball but, given the position of the ball you are not sure, then give SFP. If, however, you are satisfied they were not contesting the ball and were merely using its presence to cover violence, report it as VC.
I don't read Law 12 as splitting hairs - I read it as capturing all possibilities. If the conduct is egregious and violent, the game wants that conduct sanctioned appropriately.
Out of interest, do you lot have to submit reports for VC/SFP?
Brutality is an element of SFP.
"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses
excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."
All misconduct has to be reported to the relevant authorities. We no longer have to write up a report, simply report the offender and the offence they committed.
Embarrassingly, I have never noticed that...
I don't judge a player's intention. I judge what I see: namely, did the player do something that appears to be a regular football challenge but with excessive force or brutality, or did he do something that is not a normal football challenge with brutality?
- Status