NEW MCI re-refereeing

[GraemeS]

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?

We can't be going around giving red cards based off ludicrous hypotheticals regarding what might happen when players fall, especially since you seem to be specifically taking it away from the context of the surface he actually fell on to! Players falling to the ground is part of the game - @RefIADad has posted an example of Rooney taking down a player who's moving at high speed as a specific example of the fact that it is safe to knock an opponent over.

The impact force with the ground can't be a factor unless we're looking to start sending players off any time they knock an opponent over?

 

[GraemeS]

"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?

So you just chose to start reading that section mid-paragraph? Because the first half of the paragraph reads "The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in law..."

The fact that nothing in law defines this as a red card doesn't mean it isn't provisioned for in law - it means we're expected to define it according to the yellow card criteria that it does clearly fit. Anything else is back to making things up and LWR as discussed previously.

 

[GraemeS]

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.

The idea you leave the ground and then have no influence on any impact is a myth. You can leave the ground and lock your legs straight, like a torpedo, two-footing and studs first. Or leave the ground and clatter your entire body into an opponent, imparting significant force. Or you can do what Tripper did - bend his knees, keep one foot behind him and try to hook his leading leg round the front of the opponent.

Again, I don't really understand what additional control he would have gained by un-bending his back knee so that his foot skims along the surface? Focusing on if he's touching the ground or not is a red herring - focus on what he's trying to do with the leading leg and you'll see he's specifically taken actions to reduce the impact force.

 

[bloovee]

The idea you leave the ground and then have no influence on any impact is a myth. You can leave the ground and lock your legs straight, like a torpedo, two-footing and studs first. Or leave the ground and clatter your entire body into an opponent, imparting significant force. Or you can do what Tripper did - bend his knees, keep one foot behind him and try to hook his leading leg round the front of the opponent.

Again, I don't really understand what additional control he would have gained by un-bending his back knee so that his foot skims along the surface? Focusing on if he's touching the ground or not is a red herring - focus on what he's trying to do with the leading leg and you'll see he's specifically taken actions to reduce the impact force.

I'm glad we've sorted that out. So every time De Bruyne (or A.N.Other) cruises past a slower opponent, he can expect the same treatment and same outcome?

With those cynical specs still on, I'm wondering why Sky aren't re-running for general consumption the camera angle from behind the goal that De Bruyne was heading for, because that's the angle which is the most damning (the video looks worse than the still of Trippier airborne). I'm certainly not buying the idea that Trippier could know precisely how to flex his foot so as to hit the opponent's leg without causing injury.

 

[GraemeS]

I'm glad we've sorted that out. So every time De Bruyne (or A.N.Other) cruises past a slower opponent, he can expect the same treatment and same outcome?

With those cynical specs still on, I'm wondering why Sky aren't re-running for general consumption the camera angle from behind the goal that De Bruyne was heading for, because that's the angle which is the most damning (the video looks worse than the still of Trippier airborne). I'm certainly not buying the idea that Trippier could know precisely how to flex his foot so as to hit the opponent's leg without causing injury.

I mean....if they're willing to take a yellow card 17 times a game and knowing if they get it wrong it could be red then....sure?

Straighten your leg. Now bend it. Did you have control of that process? Then why do you think it's impossible a professional athlete can't do the same even when he's in motion?

 

[bloovee]

I mean....if they're willing to take a yellow card 17 times a game and knowing if they get it wrong it could be red then....sure?

Straighten your leg. Now bend it. Did you have control of that process? Then why do you think it's impossible a professional athlete can't do the same even when he's in motion?

I just tried it. Good job nobody was running past me at the time.

 

[Big Cat]

I don't really get the intensity of this debate. The challenge itself was a routine caution in respect of the risk of injury to the opponent etc...
The argument from my POV, more revolves around the fact that this level of risk is unacceptable when clearly not challenging for the ball. Combined with the degree of USB (cheating), the offence is aggravated and a caution is not adequate punishment or deterrent
The LOTG ought to have clarification or a revision to indicate a dismissal going forward (to seemingly lineate with other Countries)
Perhaps just, 'the R should consider SFP for 'reckless SPA' when not making an attempt to play the ball

 

[bloovee]

I'm struggling with the idea that there is no risk of injury, just because studs aren't showing. It's someone being kicked on the knee (though I see in some narratives it's now the "shin") from the side with some force. I've said above the "excessive force" language is silly, and I don't buy the narrative that Trippier timed it so well that he got there first and De Bruyne's knee hit his outstretched foot.

I'm not even sure where the report came from that Mr Gillett thought it was studs up then on the OFR saw it wasn't. Has PGMOL actually said something to justify a dodgy VAR decision?

 

[RefIADad]

I'm struggling with the idea that there is no risk of injury, just because studs aren't showing. It's someone being kicked on the knee (though I see in some narratives it's now the "shin") from the side with some force. I've said above the "excessive force" language is silly, and I don't buy the narrative that Tripper timed it so well that he got there first and De Bruyne's knee hit his outstretched foot.

I'm not even sure where the report came from that Mr Gillett thought it was studs up then on the OFR saw it wasn't. Has PGMOL actually said something to justify a dodgy VAR decision?

EDIT-Tried to actually quote @Big Cat , but my coffee hasn’t kicked in yet…..

It’s because instead of using judgment and common sense, referees now have to think about 28 considerations and figure out how many of those fit the play in question.

This isn’t hard with some common sense and reasonable judgment. Trippier didn’t make a play for the ball. He’s lunging and out of control. He contacts DeBruyne with speed at knee height.

It’s a VC red card.

 

[one]

Perhaps just, 'the R should consider SFP for 'reckless SPA' when not making an attempt to play the ball

Not making an attempt to play the ball should make this VC (instead of SFP) but the suggestion makes sense and it won't be the first in the lotg. Any non-negligible strike to the head when not 'challenging for the ball' is red. Similar concept of bigger sanction in dogso situations.

 

[QuaverRef]

I'm struggling with the idea that there is no risk of injury, just because studs aren't showing. It's someone being kicked on the knee (though I see in some narratives it's now the "shin") from the side with some force. I've said above the "excessive force" language is silly, and I don't buy the narrative that Tripper timed it so well that he got there first and De Bruyne's knee hit his outstretched foot.

I'm not even sure where the report came from that Mr Gillett thought it was studs up then on the OFR saw it wasn't. Has PGMOL actually said something to justify a dodgy VAR decision?

Slightly left field opinion here but why do we always focus on ‘studs showing’. I know it looks worse on viewing but these days everyone is wearing rubber moulds, especially on the current surfaces. From the angle Tripper went in you can do more damage with a kicking action than you can with the bottom of your foot with rubber moulds

 

[Mooseybaby]

F'k me! It's exhausting just reading through this thread, would be borderline suicidal if I was still active and having this conversation at an u8to16s game!

 

[deusex]

I'm struggling with the idea that there is no risk of injury, just because studs aren't showing. It's someone being kicked on the knee (though I see in some narratives it's now the "shin") from the side with some force. I've said above the "excessive force" language is silly, and I don't buy the narrative that Tripper timed it so well that he got there first and De Bruyne's knee hit his outstretched foot.

I'm not even sure where the report came from that Mr Gillett thought it was studs up then on the OFR saw it wasn't. Has PGMOL actually said something to justify a dodgy VAR decision?

Who said that?

 

[deusex]

Slightly left field opinion here but why do we always focus on ‘studs showing’. I know it looks worse on viewing but these days everyone is wearing rubber moulds, especially on the current surfaces. From the angle Tripper went in you can do more damage with a kicking action than you can with the bottom of your foot with rubber moulds

It's a nonsense phrase I really hate. It confuses players who think any tackle where they see a stud is a red card.
It should absolutely never be used by a referee.

 

[LothianRef]

Just to add that the Rangers red card briefly mentioned earlier in this thread has been rescinded/retrospectively downgraded to a yellow

 

[Max2]

Just to add that the Rangers red card briefly mentioned earlier in this thread has been rescinded/retrospectively downgraded to a yellow

 

[bloovee]

Who said that?

That's why I asked!

A couple of "reports" said it. I thinhk they've based it on Dermot Gallagher's comments (aka guesses) about the VAR conversation, viz. VAR looked at it, asked Jarred what he felt he had seen and then he came back and said ‘I’ve seen it and described it as a cynical tackle but it wasn’t serious foul play. He hasn’t caught him with his studs across the knee, I advise you go to the monitor to have a look’.

Whereas what the VAR really said was, "It's the Premier League, son, not bloody Australia. And unlike where you come from, we don't have to explain our decisions."

 

[bloovee]

F'k me! It's exhausting just reading through this thread, would be borderline suicidal if I was still active and having this conversation at an u8to16s game!

Look on it as an educational opportunity. I could feel suicidal reading the lotg sometimes... e.g. two definitions of VC (law 12 and the glossary). Expanding the thread topic further - can you still call an attempted head butt VC? A head butt is surely brutality, so an attempt must be attempted brtuality and VC - but the lotg say you can actually strike someone on the head or face with neglible force and it's not VC. So hitting someone with a hand or arm slightly is better than a head butt (or swinging arm) that doesn't connect at all.

 

[bloovee]

It's a nonsense phrase I really hate. It confuses players who think any tackle where they see a stud is a red card.
It should absolutely never be used by a referee.

It was in the original "FIFA considerations", viz. "16 Does the player use studs when making a tackle?"

https://www.footballaustralia.com.au/sites/ffa/files/2017-09/AFC%20Consideration-Booklet-2017-revised_9nlkpp5ei4sr17tnk5rrlowf9.pdf

That was "condensed" in 2019:

Challenges
Protect the safety of the players
Careless, reckless, excessive force
Speed / Intensity / Point of contact
Foot on the ground
Illegal use of Arms
Challenge for the ball / Possible to play the ball
Clear action or grey zone
Teamwork: Opinion / Decision / Confirmati

And the latest iteration seems to be
Challenges
Football understanding
• Game control
o Protect the players and the game - Careless/reckless/excessive force
• Use of clear considerations
o Point of contact - Intensity-speed-force
• Illegal use of hands or arms - Clear movement or second action
• Teamwork - Communication

http://flsrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Condensed-FIFA-Considerations.pdf

So somewhere out there are the clips to illustrate the boundaries between YC and RC (SFP/VC).

But with regard to whether showing studs should come into it, you need to tell Mr Gallagher (and PGMOL if what he said really is why the RC was downgraded).

 

[Anubis]

To further add confusion to the mix, two of the worst tackles seen in recent Scottish history at the weekend were shown yellows at the time, have thankully been upgraded to reds,

strange weekend all round, correct reds given at the time downgraded and incorrect yellows upgraded to reds

All by very highly ranked officials


chance does public park ref have