NEW MCI re-refereeing

[RustyRef]

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.

And that's where I'm struggling with this one, aside from the oft stated fact that I don't like these acts of cheating.

If I see a player that high off the ground in normal play alarm bells are immediately ringing. Once airborne like that you have absolutely zero control of your body and therefore where you are going to land or where you are going to hit the opponent. It simply becomes a lottery. When you also factor in that the ball was in a different postcode I just don't see how it can be anything other than red, and even if the VAR agrees there is no possible way that it can be called a clear and obvious error.

The irony here is that if it had badly injured a flagship player like De Bruyne, whether through the contact or his subsequent fall, the reaction would have been entirely different. It would no longer be expected as part of the game, and rather there'd be demand for a crackdown.

 

[Wolf_Ref]

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

Coward's challenge. Red.

Agree with both of these. It should be removed from the game like a cancerous tumour is removed from a body! What offends me the most is comments like "he took one for the team here", "that's a clever foul". I understand a pull is ok to be honest, YC is ok, but the risk of those challenges is that there is no chance of getting the ball and IF they make that bad contact, it could be a leg breaker. However, more worrying is that it feels like cheating.

I think the referee had an excellent game (and it was an outstanding game of football to watch, just to add there), but there has to be integrity in the game, and allowing these tackles is undermining and disappoints me. It wouldn't take much to get rid of this!

With this in mind, the recent email from FA regarding 'respect' is encouraging to read, but until they oust the entitled and boistrous attitudes at the top of the professional game, it will never filter through down to grassroots. Rugby always work top-down, and you see that it works! Although (in my opinion) it is an inferior sport, it is run in a far superior manner.

Rant over - I shall retire to get a beer or two now.

 

[Anubis]

And that's where I'm struggling with this one, aside from the oft stated fact that I don't like these acts of cheating.

If I see a player that high off the ground in normal play alarm bells are immediately ringing. Once airborne like that you have absolutely zero control of your body and therefore where you are going to land or where you are going to hit the opponent. It simply becomes a lottery. When you also factor in that the ball was in a different postcode I just don't see how it can be anything other than red, and even if the VAR agrees there is no possible way that it can be called a clear and obvious error.

The irony here is that if it had badly injured a flagship player like De Bruyne, whether through the contact or his subsequent fall, the reaction would have been entirely different. It would no longer be expected as part of the game, and rather there'd be demand for a crackdown.

Am dismayed to read fellow refs backing a yellow here

its the clearest endangering safety you can ever ask to see

great point, had the player actually been badly hurt, folk would be screaming red card, not just City fans but football fans who appreciate genius like KDB

those waiting to choose their colour of card based on whether the endangering actually became a stretcher case and six months out are really doing the game a bad turn.


endangering, is a red card. How anyone cannot see the danger in this tackle is astonishing,

 

[Kevin0954]

Speed he was going, KDB is tripped puts his arms out to save himself, breaks a collar bone or dislocates an elbow. Just don't expect player safety to come into it !
Be interesting to know what the yellow was given for, usb, preventing a promising attack or the new sanction to appear soon (like the old kids game Simon says) now known as "VAR says".

 

[GraemeS]

Speed he was going, KDB is tripped puts his arms out to save himself, breaks a collar bone or dislocates an elbow. Just don't expect player safety to come into it !
Be interesting to know what the yellow was given for, usb, preventing a promising attack or the new sanction to appear soon (like the old kids game Simon says) now known as "VAR says".

Why does the player going for the ball or not affect the safety? Exact same tackle but only inches from the ball making the same contact with the attacker and it's a yellow with no fuss. The ball being further away doesn't put his collar bone at any more risk.

 

[Kevin0954]

Why does the player going for the ball or not affect the safety? Exact same tackle but only inches from the ball making the same contact with the attacker and it's a yellow with no fuss. The ball being further away doesn't put his collar bone at any more risk.

Just don't expect player safety to come into it !
Previous mentions in the thread about player safety etc., it isnt the issue.
The issue is the object of the lunge is to bring down an opponent, (its not a tackle or challenge in any sense of either term). Im saying that under present laws this is a massive grey area (or perhaps an orange card). Maybe not put too well earlier.

 

[cwyeary]

People keep throwing around the words "tackle" and "challenge". The glossary of the laws define these terms.

Tackle
A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)

Challenge
An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball

If the player isn't attempting to play the ball, then we're already past what would be considered standard reckless trips.

 

[RustyRef]

Why does the player going for the ball or not affect the safety? Exact same tackle but only inches from the ball making the same contact with the attacker and it's a yellow with no fuss. The ball being further away doesn't put his collar bone at any more risk.

Please tell me how this player is in control of his body. He simply isn't, he is completely out of control and the more I look at this the more obvious red card it is. Look how high his trailing leg is from the floor.

 

[deusex]

Coward's challenge. Red.

Nonsense fan phrase.
What does this even mean?

 

[bloovee]

Why does the player going for the ball or not affect the safety? Exact same tackle but only inches from the ball making the same contact with the attacker and it's a yellow with no fuss. The ball being further away doesn't put his collar bone at any more risk.

It wasn't a "tackle".

(Is everyone OK that if DOGSO in the PA this would be red? "The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball.")

Anyway I've sussed why City fans are ok it was only a yellow. Trippier isn't banned for when Newcastle play Liverpool.

(Cynicism filter still on.)

But that does raise the issue of not just the onfield decision but the fairness of the disciplinary consequences (or lack of consequences). The main issue though remains the moderation of and consistency of VAR (especially in the unique world of PGMOL).

 

[GraemeS]

It wasn't a "tackle".

(Is everyone OK that if DOGSO in the PA this would be red? "The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball.")

Anyway I've sussed why City fans are ok it was only a yellow. Trippier isn't banned for when Newcastle play Liverpool.

(Cynicism filter still on.)

But that does raise the issue of not just the onfield decision but the fairness of the disciplinary consequences (or lack of consequences). The main issue though remains the moderation of and consistency of VAR (especially in the unique world of PGMOL).

Everyone who wants red always fills their argument with "if's". If it was in the PA. If it was higher. If it was studs-first. If he fell and broke an arm.

And the funny thing is, I agree! If any(?) of those things had been true, I would support red. There are a lot of reasons this could have become a red card tackle(/whatever you want to call it). But where those reasons don't apply, we don't get to just make up laws to fit our own personal definitions of what feels fair.

No one has yet explained what actual law you want to apply to send him off, without filling their answer with conditions and hypotheticals. It's clearly not VC because it's done for (un)sporting reasons. And it's not SFP because the ball being a little further away than normal doesn't suddenly make a careless/reckless trip dangerous. So.....maybe he spat or committed OFFINABUS while he was in the process of tripping him?

 

[GraemeS]

Please tell me how this player is in control of his body. He simply isn't, he is completely out of control and the more I look at this the more obvious red card it is. Look how high his trailing leg is from the floor.

View attachment 5849

There are good reasons VAR isn't supposed to use stills for decisions like this. Forget the still, go back and watch the full speed replay again and explain where you think you see danger or excessive force?

 

[JamesL]

No one has yet explained what actual law you want to apply to send him off,

It's SFP for me, a player who lunges from the front, side or from behind with one or both legs using excessive force is guilty of serious foul play.

Let's have a look at FIFA considerations:
Fouls: careless, reckless, using excessive force/Violent conduct
1. Does the player show a lack of attention or consideration when making his challenge?
2 Does the player act without precaution when making the challenge?
3 Does the player make fair or unfair contact with the opponent after touching the ball? NA
4 Does the player act with complete disregard of the danger to his opponent?
5 Does the player act with a complete disregard of the consequences for his opponent?
6 Does the player have a chance of playing the ball in a fair manner?
7 Is the challenge putting an opponent in a dangerous situation?
8 Does the player touch the ball after making contact with the opponent?
9 Does the player far exceed the necessary use of force when making the challenge?
10 Does the player use brutality against an opponent when challenging?
11 Is the challenge clearly endangering the safety of the opponent?
12 What degree of speed and/or intensity is the player using when making the challenge? At speed, high intensity
13 Does the player show clear malice when making the challenge?
14 Does the player lunge at an opponent from the front, from the side or from behind?
15 Which part of the body has the player used to make contact? Foot
16 Does the player use his studs when making a tackle? No
17 On which part of the opponent's body is contact made? knee
18 In what direction are the tackler's feet pointing? Away from opponent
19 Is the player challenging for the ball at the moment the contact is made?
20 Does the player(s) charge the opponent in a fair manner? NA
221 Do you consider the foul an act of violent conduct or a serious foul play?
222 Has the challenge been committed in a fair manner or a careless manner? NA
248 Does the player use his arm as a 'tool' or a 'weapon'? NA
249 Does the player challenge for the ball in a fair manner

For completeness I have answered all of the questions. I understand that some lean towards the careless / reckless but the questions obviously escalate and as you know we punish the most serious so a player may act without precaution but also use excessive force.

The only thing from these considerations that you might use to save them is the direction of the feet but that is far outweighed by the other consideration imo.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

For me it is very clearly a red card for violent conduct in the Laws. Trippier was obviously not challenging for the ball, even by his own interview admission he was only ever intending to bring down the opponent. He did this by performing a lunging kick to the knee.

Law 12 states 'Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.'

The Laws define 'excessive force' quite simply as 'using more force/energy than is necessary'. So the referee must assess how much force could be reasonably considered necessary in any situation they are considering excessive force.

Performing a lunging kick into an opponent while not challenging for the ball could never be considered a necessary degree of force. Therefore it is excessive force, and violent conduct.

 

[bloovee]

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.

IFAB said last year they were happy with how VAR was being applied, globally. As usual, PGMOL will be the outlier that makes them rethink.

 

[GraemeS]

@JamesL These are brand new considerations on me (thanks IFAB), so bear with me if I'm misunderstanding.

But broadly speaking, I disagree with:
4 and 5 - note the word "complete" when contrasted with the fact this is clearly intended as a trip. He's gone out of his way to try and wrap a foot around and trip rather than going studs-first into the knee/ankle which would probably have been easier
7 and 11 - what's more dangerous about this vs any other trip? No one has yet explained that.
9 - very subjective and I definitely don't see far more force here that what is required to trip him. Again, the specific wording - far exceed - means the correct answer here is no for me.
13 - malice? No, he's trying to trip him for footballing reasons
221 - again, a purely subjective consideration. I can consider tapping someone on the shoulder SFP, that doesn't make it correct to do so.

I can't dispute your answer to 14 but I just generally think the concept of "lunging" is poorly defined and not automatically dangerous in every context. A player can "lunge" with no one around him and it isn't dangerous, so blanket penalising lunges without considering context, position of opponent and likely force of contact is reductive.

Overall, I'm scoring about half of the points against him that you are, which I guess is why this is a yellow-card level of force and danger for me. I'd love to also be able to stack another yellow on top for SPA as well, but we all know that's not allowed.

 

[bloovee]

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.

Removing "intent" (from most law 12 offences) is another thing that might be a consideration. What got me most about Trippier was that it wasn't just SPA with a bit of added desperation - he didn't even think of trying to catch De Bruyne, just lay in wait then launched himself.

 

[GraemeS]

Removing "intent" (from most law 12 offences) is another thing that might be a consideration. What got me most about Trippier was that it wasn't just SPA with a bit of added desperation - he didn't even think of trying to catch De Bruyne, just lay in wait then launched himself.

You've been really fair up to now, but I think the blue specs are just slipping in here. Tripper isn't waiting for the opportunity to lunge at KDB, he's trying to block his path, KDB's momentum takes him past Tripper and so he trips him because he's just been beaten for pace.

 

[bloovee]

Everyone who wants red always fills their argument with "if's". If it was in the PA. If it was higher. If it was studs-first. If he fell and broke an arm.

And the funny thing is, I agree! If any(?) of those things had been true, I would support red. There are a lot of reasons this could have become a red card tackle(/whatever you want to call it). But where those reasons don't apply, we don't get to just make up laws to fit our own personal definitions of what feels fair.

No one has yet explained what actual law you want to apply to send him off, without filling their answer with conditions and hypotheticals. It's clearly not VC because it's done for (un)sporting reasons. And it's not SFP because the ball being a little further away than normal doesn't suddenly make a careless/reckless trip dangerous. So.....maybe he spat or committed OFFINABUS while he was in the process of tripping him?

Trippier lunged at an opponent "in challenging for the ball" (sort of) from the side using one leg, and endangered the safety of an opponent.

That's not difficult. Unless you really want to argue that the opponent had to be badly injured to justify SFP.

 

[bloovee]

You've been really fair up to now, but I think the blue specs are just slipping in here. Tripper isn't waiting for the opportunity to lunge at KDB, he's trying to block his path, KDB's momentum takes him past Tripper and so he trips him because he's just been beaten for pace.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it.