A&H

Mass Con Approach

G

Ge0rge

New Member
I watched a video from the FA recently that was speaking about how to tackle mass confrontation. It spoke about sanctioning the instigator and retaliator, with the utmost priority and then dealing with other incidents depending on severity and at the same time making sure the sanctions given are ‘balanced’. My question is do the two who started it require the same sanction? If you decide to send one off, do you send the other off to maintain control and make it seem as if your response is balanced? Or would that be unfair to a player who may have just deserved a yellow for their action but what has followed is what has caused them to see red, something out of their control.

An example that I remember was Emre Can being sent off in the Champions League last year. He committed a reckless foul, and then pushed Neymar, which then caused a mass confrontation to form. His push was deserved of a yellow at most, which means he should have gone for two yellows, but he saw a straight red. The retaliator only saw yellow.

Any help would be much appreciated


(See 3.40 for clip)
 
The Referee Store
It all depends on the situation you're faced with and no two incidents will be the same.

If you see a red for both the instigator and retaliator, give it, if it's two yellows give it, if it's a red and yellow have the stones to give that even though it'll be unpopular.

Certainly don't approach it with a preconceived notion that both deserve the same sanction.
 
I'd take a (slightly) different stance to @es1 . Certainly if it is clear to everyone that the two 'instigators' require different sanctions then absolutely go with that. However, if, on the other hand, it is genuinely credible to give both the same sanction then that is likely to give you the best chance of keeping some semblance of match control after a difficult incident. Which is probably why the FA advice leans in that direction.

However, if it's just you at grassroots level then simply spotting / remembering who the two players are will likely be a big enough challenge!
 
I'd add my two cents: if the actions of either of the first two are "orange," then make them match. But if there is a clear discrepancy, a mismatch is appropriate. (Though often even if the initial action of one of them might only warrant a caution, the sum total of behavior in the brouhaha may well end up with both being sent off.)
 
socal lurker said:
I'd add my two cents: if the actions of either of the first two are "orange," then make them match. But if there is a clear discrepancy, a mismatch is appropriate. (Though often even if the initial action of one of them might only warrant a caution, the sum total of behavior in the brouhaha may well end up with both being sent off.)
Click to expand...
I would add to this. One orange and another clear sanction then it's usually both the colour of the clear sanction. That is, orange and yellow, I'd go yellow for both OR orange and red, I'd go both red.

At the end, one size does not fit all, consider match control, the context of the whole match and be fair.

I had an incident with a trip which usually is not a card. It triggered punches thrown by two opponents. At the end it was a yellow to the tripper and two reds for opponents. No one complained.
 
What about the player who literally gets physically attacked by another player on field? There's little anybody can do when somebody comes flying at you with fists and feet flying outside of defend yourself in the same manner. Once the player being attacked slings a punch of their own in self defence are they automatically being dismissed as well? I know the LOTG answer but it's difficult to issue a red card to a person that was only defending themselves whilst being physically assaulted. ..
 
I think the 'little' they can do outside of defending themselves in the same manner is is to run away but most times just walking away also works. But I get what you are saying. Yeap, we are paid to make the difficult decisions as well as the easy ones. ;)
 
one said:
I think the 'little' they can do outside of defending themselves in the same manner is is to run away but most times just walking away also works. But I get what you are saying. Yeap, we are paid to make the difficult decisions as well as the easy ones. ;)
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that difficult really. If someone gathers themselves, aims and then throws a punch then they are no longer "being attacked" and are now "in a fight". They can run away or actively back off - and to be honest, if I've seen a clear punch at them, I'd accept pushing or even grappling their opponent without feeling the need to sanction beyond the initial offence.

But punching isn't self defence, that's just using an excuse to have a fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Kes said:
What about the player who literally gets physically attacked by another player on field? There's little anybody can do when somebody comes flying at you with fists and feet flying outside of defend yourself in the same manner. Once the player being attacked slings a punch of their own in self defence are they automatically being dismissed as well? I know the LOTG answer but it's difficult to issue a red card to a person that was only defending themselves whilst being physically assaulted. ..
Click to expand...
I would dismiss both players (because there's no choice) but I'd submit an ER to indicate the victim acted in self-defence
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top