A&H

NEW MCI re-refereeing

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.
I genuinely don't understand the danger here. Yes, he went in from some distance and tripped him by the knee with the top of his boot.

But....that happens in football sometimes. Because of the height and the lunging motion I have no problem with yellow, we usually wouldn't go red because it's one-footed and leading with the top of the boot rather than studs. But I don't understand people thinking this is dangerous. Short of a freakishly bad landing, I cannot see any way this action by Trippier could possibly cause serious injury to KDB.
 
The Referee Store
Unless you really want to argue that the opponent had to be badly injured to justify SFP.

After seeing the VAR say this wasnt a clear red in Italy (a VAR going to the World Cup I might add), I'm starting to think we're going towards a world where you need an injury to have SFP.

 
Jared Gillett was tossed under the bus on this one. An intentional foul taking out a player’s legs like that with absolutely no effort to play the ball is a violent conduct send off. Kudos to him for having the guts to issue a send off, and shame on Peter Bankes for condoning that type of action.

Here’s the simple question-Do we really want that type of play in the sport?
 
Jared Gillett was tossed under the bus on this one. An intentional foul taking out a player’s legs like that with absolutely no effort to play the ball is a violent conduct send off. Kudos to him for having the guts to issue a send off, and shame on Peter Bankes for condoning that type of action.

Here’s the simple question-Do we really want that type of play in the sport?
Your "simple question" is unfortunately nothing to do with the discussion. It's not our place to apply laws to fit the way we want the sport to be, that's how we get "last week's ref" at grassroots and problematic inconsistency in the PL.

I'd like to show red for this - either as a specific extension to VC, listing as a possible DOGSO or by saying SPA cautions can be applied additively to a reckless tackle in situations like this. But where laws don't support it, referees going outside the law to sanction behaviour they don't like causes me problems next week and is a very slippery slope.
 
Your "simple question" is unfortunately nothing to do with the discussion. It's not our place to apply laws to fit the way we want the sport to be, that's how we get "last week's ref" at grassroots and problematic inconsistency in the PL.

I'd like to show red for this - either as a specific extension to VC, listing as a possible DOGSO or by saying SPA cautions can be applied additively to a reckless tackle in situations like this. But where laws don't support it, referees going outside the law to sanction behaviour they don't like causes me problems next week and is a very slippery slope.
"Do we really want that type of play in the sport?"

That would appear to be covered now on the first page of the laws. "The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, 'what would football want/expect?'”

Do you want players doing that?
 
Easy SFP excessive force and definitely NOT a clear and obvious error to sanction with a red card.

Indefensible abuse of VAR to re-referee the game for commercial benefit.

The sooner the EPL has it’s own rule book the better.

I’ll say again, if this season continues like this, it will become more and more important to remind grassroots players that they are playing to different laws on the TV.
 
Last edited:
Easy SFP excessive force and definitely NOT a clear and obvious error to sanction with a red card.

Indefensible abuse of VAR to re-referee the game for commercial benefit.

The sooner the EPL has it’s one rule book the better.

I’ll say again, if this season continues like this, it will become more and more important to remind grassroots players that they are playing to different laws on the TV.

This is the staggering thing. how on eartth can the decision to show red be clear and obvious error!

Surely for this, out of 100 refs, we would need, 75% ? to make it clear and obvious.

even on here, its, 60% 40% in favour of red

although, I did not know Banks was VAR and he missed two red cards the day before as referee so maybe he now accepts his inability to punish sfo/vc to be the norm,

Ref was spot on, why on earth he changed it can only have been political ( do we not get to hear? )
 
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 ❌

Fixed this for you.

The statments above are so generic that I could justify a red for every reckless tackle ever made with them.
There is a difference between lunging into a player (which doesn't happen here) and lunging into the space a player is about to enter to ensure you trip him. This tackle was absolutely no more dangerous than a standard cautionable tackle.
As long as all refs on here are sending off 3 players a game I have no problem with them calling for a red.
 
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.

Not difficult.... not true either...
 
After seeing the VAR say this wasnt a clear red in Italy (a VAR going to the World Cup I might add), I'm starting to think we're going towards a world where you need an injury to have SFP.


Absolutely chalk and cheese. No idea why you've uploaded this clip. start your own thread.
 
Your "simple question" is unfortunately nothing to do with the discussion. It's not our place to apply laws to fit the way we want the sport to be, that's how we get "last week's ref" at grassroots and problematic inconsistency in the PL.

I'd like to show red for this - either as a specific extension to VC, listing as a possible DOGSO or by saying SPA cautions can be applied additively to a reckless tackle in situations like this. But where laws don't support it, referees going outside the law to sanction behaviour they don't like causes me problems next week and is a very slippery slope.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

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.

I'd say that this clearly supports my position in the Laws. Trippier has admitted he wasn't trying to play the ball. What he did certainly can be (and by all rights SHOULD be) considered excessive force.

So to say I'm applying the Laws to fit the way I want the sport to look is a categorically false statement.
 
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?
You haven't answered my question. How can you be in control of your body when you have launched that high off of the ground? The simple answer is you can't, and whilst I don't normally like stills they tell a significant story here. Even had he landed by the time he made contact that is still SFP, but the fact he made contact above knee height, and was still completely airborne, makes it absolutely nailed on. Once you leave the ground like that it is SFP if you make any contact whatsoever, if you miss you are looking at a caution and a count yourself lucky you missed him message from the referee.

But to answer your question, and @JamesL has pretty much done this for me, it ticks pretty much all of the defined boxes for SFP. If you disagree with that so be it, but what not even you can disagree with is that it didn't tick a single box for being a clear and obvious error.
 
I would put out there to any referee not deeming this dangerous play consider: Run past me at full pace I will launch my foot at your knee to trip you, you are now falling, tumbling on to potentially a very hard surface, not a manicured watered EPL pitch, have I not endangered your safety? How are your knees and/or elbows, bruised or grazed or potentially worse?
 
4 and 5 - note the word "complete" when contrasted with the fact this is clearly intended as a trip.

force here that what is required to trip him. Again, the specific wording - far exceed - means the correct answer here is no for me.

Those considerations were done pre law changes and used wording to be in line with the laws. The laws got changed but the considerations didn't keep up.

The words "complete" and "far" came directly from law 12. They were removed from law 12 around 5 years ago to avoid... well, misinterpretation.
 

VIOLENT CONDUCT

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.

I'd say that this clearly supports my position in the Laws. Trippier has admitted he wasn't trying to play the ball. What he did certainly can be (and by all rights SHOULD be) considered excessive force.

So to say I'm applying the Laws to fit the way I want the sport to look is a categorically false statement.

1661306209379.png

So this is a VC red card also?
 
I would put out there to any referee not deeming this dangerous play consider: Run past me at full pace I will launch my foot at your knee to trip you, you are now falling, tumbling on to potentially a very hard surface, not a manicured watered EPL pitch, have I not endangered your safety? How are your knees and/or elbows, bruised or grazed or potentially worse?

This is exhausting,
So every slide tackle at parks football is a red card? Gotcha! He might get hurt after all....
 
View attachment 5854

So this is a VC red card also?
Yes, I would have called that a VC red as well. Even in American football, horse collar tackles are very serious penalties. I am on record saying that play was a red when it happened.

I’m not backing down from my assertion. The Trippier play should be violent conduct. I’m all in favor of a good, fair slide tackle. What Trippier did was not that in the slightest.

Here’s a good example of a strong, yet completely fair, slide tackle. Compare this to what Trippier did and let me know your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
After seeing the VAR say this wasnt a clear red in Italy (a VAR going to the World Cup I might add), I'm starting to think we're going towards a world where you need an injury to have SFP.


It's a poor tackle but the referee deemed it reckless so a yellow rather than a red but I imagine other Italian referees might see that differently.

Difference of course, that was not overturned and my main gripe is why did the VAR thought a red card for a tackle with 2 feet off the ground is not deemed as SFP? I would accept a yellow not being overturned because of some of the points being made on here but imo a yellow card would be deemed more of an error than a red.
 
Yes, I would have called that a VC red as well. Even in American football, horse collar tackles are very serious penalties. I am on record saying that play was a red when it happened.

I’m not backing down from my assertion. The Trippier play should be violent conduct. I’m all in favor of a good, fair slide tackle. What Trippier did was not that in the slightest.

Here’s a good example of a strong, yet completely fair, slide tackle. Compare this to what Trippier did and let me know your thoughts.
There's a big window in between "strong, fair slide tackle" and "seriously endangering the opponents safety". Pretending my only options are either applauding a superb tackle or sending the player off is disingenuous and distracting.

No one in this thread has tried to claim it's a fair tackle, or that it deserves anything less than yellow. But we literally have been told the VAR justification - the referee showed red because he thought it was studs first, was sent to review on the basis that it clearly wasn't and downgraded to yellow because the impact force is far lower as a result of leading/hooking with the top of his boots rather than impacting studs-first with a straight leg as he initially thought. I'm perfectly happy with that justification.
 
Back
Top