NEW MCI re-refereeing

[bloovee]

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.

"Professional foul" was really saved for what became DOGSO. This was just (apparently) SPA plus reckless so not red.

Apart from not standing up to VAR I thought Mr Gillett did well. Newcastle penalty claim perhaps denied as "fouled" player was leaping backwards, and (apparently) it's a "high bar" these days. I did wonder how bad Cancelo's tackle must have been to get a YC when advantage had been played.

 

[deusex]

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.

Who the hell goes round tripping their kids?

The lunge isn't into the player.
No attempt to play ball? So a shirt pull is also a red?
The player has used the absolute minimum amount of force to trip the player. there is clear regard for his opponents safety.
This tackle is exactly the same amount of "dangerous" as ankle tapping a player who is sprinting to bring him down.

 

[bloovee]

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.

That's the sort of gobbledegook that bad wording of the laws can reduce us to.

Is that how you'd explain it on the pitch? "It's an excessive and unnecessary challenge that uses a perfectly reasonable and proportionate amount of force for what is being attempted. Hence, yellow." Or would you say, "There's an assessor here. It's red." And "No, it won't go to VAR".

(I've got my cynicism filter on this morning.)

 

[GraemeS]

That's the sort of gobbledegook that bad wording of the laws can reduce us to.

Is that how you'd explain it on the pitch? "It's an excessive and unnecessary challenge that uses a perfectly reasonable and proportionate amount of force for what is being attempted. Hence, yellow." Or would you say, "There's an assessor here. It's red." And "No, it won't go to VAR".

(I've got my cynicism filter on this morning.)

Of course it isn't how I'd explain it on the pitch. This isn't a pitch! It's a refereeing forum. To quote your previous post:

How can there be anything more "excessive" than an airborne lunge?

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".

Is that how you'd be explaining a red on the pitch? Of course it isn't! That's a bizarre standard to suddenly introduce into the conversation out of nowhere!

In reality, I would say "It's stopping a promising attack, that's a yellow card." If challenged, I would say "nothing in the laws lets me go red unless it's dangerous, which I don't think that is". And if challenged again, I'd tell them to go away or risk a sin bin. Because that's how real-life refereeing works.

That doesn't prohibit us having a more in-depth theoretical discussion on here where we dig deeper into our thinking and justifications. But (apart from one famous example!) referees don't generally show the lawbook to prove their working mid-match.

 

[JamesL]

Of course it isn't how I'd explain it on the pitch. This isn't a pitch! It's a refereeing forum. To quote your previous post:

Is that how you'd be explaining a red on the pitch? Of course it isn't! That's a bizarre standard to suddenly introduce into the conversation out of nowhere!

In reality, I would say "It's stopping a promising attack, that's a yellow card." If challenged, I would say "nothing in the laws lets me go red unless it's dangerous, which I don't think that is". And if challenged again, I'd tell them to go away or risk a sin bin. Because that's how real-life refereeing works.

That doesn't prohibit us having a more in-depth theoretical discussion on here where we dig deeper into our thinking and justifications. But (apart from one famous example!) referees don't generally show the lawbook to prove their working mid-match.

Famous as in refchat famous?

 

[GraemeS]

Famous as in refchat famous?

That's the one!

 

[CaptainsPlease]

This tackle is exactly the same amount of "dangerous" as ankle tapping a player who is sprinting to bring him down.

There is no protective equipment covering the knee unlike most areas below.
If the offending foot had been at chest height would you feel the same?

 

[deusex]

There is no protective equipment covering the knee unlike most areas below.
If the offending foot had been at chest height would you feel the same?

I'm referring to the Rangers red card that someone posted. Not the City one.
Though I would add that a kick in the chest is not a trip, so no I wouldn't.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

I'm referring to the Rangers red card that someone posted. Not the City one.
Though I would add that a kick in the chest is not a trip, so no I wouldn't.

OK sorry for the misunderstanding. I would highlight though that in the Lundstram tackle studs were showing in the contact.

 

[Big Cat]

There's one thing for certain... The football community expected a yellow card. The vast majority of pundits and players have agreed with the outcome of a caution. The Rangers red card was a carbon copy

However, we as Referees are largely agreed that we'd like to see players dismissed for these acts of aggravated cheating. It's debatable whether supportable in Law, however I accept that it would be good if the EPL followed suit with UEFA and the ROTW

As always, the PGMOL shy away from red cards because they don't want to 'spoil the commercial product'. However, red cards on these occasions would be an investment in the game because players learn quickly and would stop taking advantage of this loop hole in a heartbeat, leading to more goals and a better spectacle (therefore return on investment). But the PGMOL has no bottle and cr4p themselves at every turn. They've kept digging this hole instead of using the early season game to set the stall out

 

[Kevin0954]

Sadly, the "spirit of the game", honesty and integrity have been devalued, if not eroded completely, from our beloved game. However the tackle is viewed, this is cheating in any sport, at any level and we are debating red or yellow!! Unfortunately cheating is not within laws 1 - 17. Needs to be a priority for IFAB, so that the professional game stops causing problems at grassroots level.

 

[Big Cat]

Sadly, the "spirit of the game", honesty and integrity have been devalued, if not eroded completely, from our beloved game. However the tackle is viewed, this is cheating in any sport, at any level and we are debating red or yellow!! Unfortunately cheating is not within laws 1 - 17. Needs to be a priority for IFAB, so that the professional game stops causing problems at grassroots level.

Very few of us call it for what it is... CHEATING
IFAB call it USB cos the don't want the image tarnished
But I don't blame the players. It the Officiating at fault. If cheating is allowed and the culture expects it, should we be surprised. Daft thing being, it would be very achievable to put a stop to this sorta nonsense and the game would benefit. But IFAB and PGMOL have always been spineless, fretting about spoiling games when in fact the game would soon be enhanced.... if they had the guts to take a leap of faith

 

[Kevin0954]

Couldn't agree more Big Cat.
Sometimes we should take a long hard look at our Rugby playing colleagues. They would deal with this sort of incident quite differently !!

 

[one]

Very few of us call it for what it is... CHEATING
IFAB call it USB cos the don't want the image tarnished
But I don't blame the players. It the Officiating at fault. If cheating is allowed and the culture expects it, should we be surprised. Daft thing being, it would be very achievable to put a stop to this sorta nonsense and the game would benefit. But IFAB and PGMOL have always been spineless, fretting about spoiling games when in fact the game would soon be enhanced.... if they had the guts to take a leap of faith

Welcome back.

 

[Kes]

Very few of us call it for what it is... CHEATING
IFAB call it USB cos the don't want the image tarnished
But I don't blame the players. It the Officiating at fault. If cheating is allowed and the culture expects it, should we be surprised. Daft thing being, it would be very achievable to put a stop to this sorta nonsense and the game would benefit. But IFAB and PGMOL have always been spineless, fretting about spoiling games when in fact the game would soon be enhanced.... if they had the guts to take a leap of faith

Nail on head BC.

Sadly, as I've posted before on this forum, the professional game's culture is based on cheating. Not just here, but the world over. Link that to an obsession with the "superstar" status of most top players and the money-spinning obligation that governing bodies have to pander to the whims and desires of these players and their adoring followers and you have a culture that is at odds with the basic tenets of "sportsmanship" that at the very least, means that the LOTG and those who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing them are of secondary importance. ☹

 

[Anubis]

Who the hell goes round tripping their kids?

The lunge isn't into the player.
No attempt to play ball? So a shirt pull is also a red?
The player has used the absolute minimum amount of force to trip the player. there is clear regard for his opponents safety.
This tackle is exactly the same amount of "dangerous" as ankle tapping a player who is sprinting to bring him down.

ok change kids, for, tripping work mate playing 5s

 

[Big Cat]

Nail on head BC.

Sadly, as I've posted before on this forum, the professional game's culture is based on cheating. Not just here, but the world over. Link that to an obsession with the "superstar" status of most top players and the money-spinning obligation that governing bodies have to pander to the whims and desires of these players and their adoring followers and you have a culture that is at odds with the basic tenets of "sportsmanship" that at the very least, means that the LOTG and those who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing them are of secondary importance. ☹

Aye, you've hammered the nail right the way in there

 

[Max2]

Coward's challenge. Red.

 

[RustyRef]

"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.

Not just to do with match control. The game is called football, not footplayer. Deliberately kicking an opponent with absolutely no attempt to play the ball just doesn't sit comfortably with me. Add in the fact here that he has launched into it, well off the ground and out of control, just makes it even more red, the fact the studs didn't make contact shouldn't save him.

Ideally IFAB would add something to laws, but as I said in most other countries this would be sanctioned as SFP, and VAR certainly wouldn't be getting involved, so IFAB probably feel they don't need to do anything. It is just for some reason it seems to be deemed acceptable in this country.

 

[socal lurker]

I think a big part of the problem is the evolution of the Laws. We have significantly moved from ITOOTR and referee judgment and discretion, to a check box approach on discipline (well, fouls too, for that matter). And the check boxes have been so focused on results, that they leave the cynical (or innocent) nature of a play by the wayside--which I think is a horrible mistake as there is a big difference between an honest but unsuccessful challenge that breaks up a play and a deliberate hack of an opponent to break up a play. And then we added VAR to micro-manage (in an inconsistent fashion) all of those little check boxes.