The Xhaka one is only 6 years ago. I remember it as it drew a lot of debate on refereeing forums, I thought it was red then, I still do, and for the same reason as I thought Trippier was red today.
NEW MCI re-refereeing
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
Doesn't have to be VC. SFP talks about excessive force, now it could easily be argued that any force is excessive as there was no attempt to play the ball, challenging with any force when you have zero chance of getting to the ball can only be excessive (i.e. not needed). I've sent players off for this, including at steps 3 and 4, and I'll continue to do so at lower levels. Any arguments will get the "you deliberately kicked the player with no attempt to get the ball" response. They might not like it, but it is fully supported in law.
And that leads onto the other issue. That type of kick out (I'm not going to call it a tackle because it isn't a tackle) at lower levels inevitably produces a confrontation or even a mass con. My experience is that immediately pulling out a red stops that firmly in its tracks. And to be clear, I'm not talking cynical trips when players are clear and breaking away, rather when there is a lunge or a clear kick out just to take out the opponent.
Why does the standard seem so wildly different when it comes to decisions given and those not given?
We've seen the PK on Ramsdale and the red card today overturned. Meanwhile clear as day red cards to Romero and McTominay are not sent down by VAR plus obvious penalties to CP vs MNU, today in Newcastle/City plus a couple of others.
The standard to remove a PK/re should not be wildly different than giving a PK/red.
We've seen the PK on Ramsdale and the red card today overturned. Meanwhile clear as day red cards to Romero and McTominay are not sent down by VAR plus obvious penalties to CP vs MNU, today in Newcastle/City plus a couple of others.
The standard to remove a PK/re should not be wildly different than giving a PK/red.
Last edited:
The Trippier ‘tackle’ fits SFP perfectly for me. Really surprised it was overturned
Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Remember last year a player was RC against Liverpool in the CL for something similar and that was a great decision
Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Remember last year a player was RC against Liverpool in the CL for something similar and that was a great decision
I think there was a fair amount of discussion based on a Luke Shaw tackle Taylor wouldn't send him off for yeah. Also quite clear that these tackles are red where I am and I can't understand why IFAB don't make an adjustment or clarification in law for these.
In real time, I thought it was harsh. With the replay I thought the ref had made the right call. I thought it was an out of control lunge, which caught him high.
Why do commentators call it taking one for the team? To me it's normalising or adding justifying rationale to player/managers/fans for cheating.
Why do commentators call it taking one for the team? To me it's normalising or adding justifying rationale to player/managers/fans for cheating.
Liverpool v Atletico Madrid it was but that was slightly different as that was studs down the back of the leg(similar to the Xhaka one) where this one was from the side but without studs showing which I'm guessing is what saved Trippier here but I don't agree with the VAR getting involved here.
This is an occasion where I felt Gillett should of rejected the review really but maybe deep down he could be relieved it got changed because no doubt he will of been accused of ruining a fantastic game as no doubt City would of ended up winning the game with the man advantage.
One small minor point also, I wonder if his concentration was slightly affected as he done the "wiping the card" gesture with the yellow instead of the red initially before repeating it again but with the red as he should of done insitally.
Went for the player not the ball and in a way that endangered safety high on the knee where there is no protection. Gillett had a great view and was in no doubt but seems that the pressure of VAR is irresistible. Furthermore VAR failed to intervene on the penalty infringement by Stones, but Gillett again had a good view and should have given it in the first place.
Last edited:
I've been in this debate before about the old taking one for the team business and have always been in the football expects camp, which is that rightly or wrongly, players "taking one for the team" is an expected part of football.
This one is not as egregious as other examples that we have seen in the past though however....
This one ticks all the SFP boxes for me. High, late, lunge, endangering safety, air borne etc. Literally all the buzz words.
Fail to see how it was deemed C&O never mind got as far as being over turned.
This one is not as egregious as other examples that we have seen in the past though however....
This one ticks all the SFP boxes for me. High, late, lunge, endangering safety, air borne etc. Literally all the buzz words.
Fail to see how it was deemed C&O never mind got as far as being over turned.
"It could be argued"... You're absolutely right - you can massively over-stretch the definition of SFP to get to red as well!
You're only arguing this is excessive force because you want it to be excessive force for sporting/match control reasons. None of which changes the reality that the force involved is fairly minimal. This was worse than some other examples I've seen due to height, but the contact with the top of the boot and minimal force makes it a reckless/unsporting trip and no more.
deusex
RefChat Addict
That's an awful decision.
The very definition of a reckless trip.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
oddly I posted just as this came up
Hopefully you dont play with your kids in the park and trip them up if you class that as a trip....
both feet off ground, out of control, no attempt to play ball, no regard for opponents safety, at speed.
no wonder tackles like this continue if referees class them aa a trip.
Attachments
Last edited:
On the main City forum, most seem content with the yellow. However, one comment was that this "essentially told every player they can now do a knee high challenge, whilst being out of control with 2 feet off the ground".
It seems to be Everton fans who are most cross, after Allan's YC reviewed as red back in March (v Newcastle, whose players wanted the red)
How episode 14 of "The Embarrassment of Dermot Gallagher" treated it:
And on here:
refchat.co.uk
And RC yesterday reduced to YC (2 min 36):
www.skysports.com
And what should have been the clincher (I'd not call this "challenging for the ball"):
It seems to be Everton fans who are most cross, after Allan's YC reviewed as red back in March (v Newcastle, whose players wanted the red)
How episode 14 of "The Embarrassment of Dermot Gallagher" treated it:
Ref Watch: Was Allan red card the right call?
Dermot Gallagher explains why Allan was given a red card in Everton's 1-0 win over Newcastle United.
www.skysports.com
And on here:
Everton V Newcastle
Thoughts on the red card via VAR? Seems to be dividing opinion although I do think the right decision was made as Allen's tackle did have briefly 2 feet off the ground, no attempt to play the ball and the potential for a severe injury was there. What is getting people though is Pawson was...
refchat.co.uk
And RC yesterday reduced to YC (2 min 36):
Manchester City fight back for point in Newcastle thriller
FREE TO WATCH: Highlights of Newcastle against Manchester City in the Premier League.
And what should have been the clincher (I'd not call this "challenging for the ball"):
Attachments
Last edited:
Quite surprising too hear most City fans think that is just a yellow so couple that with Peps reaction and the pundits reaction, whether we like it or not, football expects that is just a yellow although I think the reaction would be different if Trippier was showing studs there.
It's not the worse cynical foul I have seen but 2 feet are off the ground and it's high, referee had a very good view yet still got sent to the screen, certainly not a good look.
It's not the worse cynical foul I have seen but 2 feet are off the ground and it's high, referee had a very good view yet still got sent to the screen, certainly not a good look.
How can there be anything more "excessive" than an airborne lunge?"It could be argued"... You're absolutely right - you can massively over-stretch the definition of SFP to get to red as well!
You're only arguing this is excessive force because you want it to be excessive force for sporting/match control reasons. None of which changes the reality that the force involved is fairly minimal. This was worse than some other examples I've seen due to height, but the contact with the top of the boot and minimal force makes it a reckless/unsporting trip and no more.
I'm afraid this goes back to the use of the language of careless / reckless / excessive force as afterthought criteria for disciplinary action. "Excessive force" was always a daft expression - presumably "not excessive force" is just enough force (in this instance) to allow a lunge with one foot that stops a promising attack and didn't actually cause injury. The language is part of the problem, where most people would assume "reckless", a word with a dictionary definition, is worse than something indefinable like "excessive force".
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Seen the Newcastle City clips, red card
Someone must have said in refs ear. change that to yellow if you wish another game this season.
these tackles are deemed acceptable only because as referees we dont punish them correctly. Yes due to the wording of the law we need to stretch the words to justify our red, however
" a tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent"
covers this type of challenge.
Someone must have said in refs ear. change that to yellow if you wish another game this season.
these tackles are deemed acceptable only because as referees we dont punish them correctly. Yes due to the wording of the law we need to stretch the words to justify our red, however
" a tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent"
covers this type of challenge.
Last edited:
The wording of the law isn't to punish an "excessive" challenge, it's to punish a challenge with "excessive force". There's a difference, and I would happily put this forward as an example that perfectly illustrates that difference. It's an excessive and unnecessary challenge that uses a perfectly reasonable and proportionate amount of force for what is being attempted. Hence, yellow.
I'm perfectly with you in that the CREUF criteria are unclear, could do with changing, and there's room in the laws and "what football expects" to add specific provisions saying this kind of challenge is red. None of which changes the fact that the current laws say what they do and want yellow for this challenge at the moment.
Last edited:
What's happened to the days where a "professional foul" is classed as a red card?
I don't think it's full on SFP but it's deliberate,(player admitted it was) high and potentially dangerous. Not a fan of these type of tackles, understand more if he was last man and you take one for the team but at least its a guaranteed punishment with a red because of DOGSO but this was in the middle of the pitch so no real excuses really.