Newcastle V Leicester

[Kes]

Not strictly true.
If opponent safety is endangered w/o excessive force it can still meet the threshold for SFP, hence the endangering safety OR use excessive force OR brutality.
Although in this scenario force is most certainly a consideration as to if safety was endangered or not.

I'll always consider advice from yourself @JamesL as you know mate, but my opinion with this particular challenge is that there was no force or endangerment evident.
Had both players been travelling towards each other at speed or some such scenario then the outcome (both physically and in terms of Law 12) would/could have been different of course.
I'm just opposed to the misguided idea that some referees (and most players) have that equates to "Studs showing - has to be red" which is of course utter rubbish.

 

[JamesL]

I'll always consider advice from yourself @JamesL as you know mate, but my opinion with this particular challenge is that there was no force or endangerment evident.
Had both players been travelling towards each other at speed or some such scenario then the outcome (both physically and in terms of Law 12) would/could have been different of course.
I'm just opposed to the misguided idea that some referees (and most players) have that equates to "Studs showing - has to be red" which is of course utter rubbish.

And I quite agree with you..I was probably being pedantic and taking what you wrote and applying an literal wording or explicit meaning to it which was probably not your intention.

I quite agree with you on your assessment of this challenge.

To be blunt, I was being a Sanctimonious Twit.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm really wishing the video wasn't geo-blocked for me . . .

 

[CaptainsPlease]

I haven’t seen the challenge bar images, but this mindset can be a dangerous when refereeing. Remember that studs most of the time are just moulds, so really if there’s no force in the challenge you’d cause more damage kicking someone in the knee than tapping them with plastic studs. It looks bad and untidy yes, but it’s not always endangering an opponent

I don't think the sanction should depend on whether a player has metal studs on or not. If this exact contact had been at torso height for example I don't think anyone would be calling for yellow.

No offence mate, but that still isn't at all. You'd need a still showing the initial/original point of contact (and demonstrating excessive force at the same time) in order to support your argument. Your still looks to me like it's taken as Guimares is drawing his leg away and downwards, which is actually what happened after the initial contact with the middle of his opponent's quad/thigh.
Like you, I saw it in real time and the subsequent slow-mo's and it's a clumsy/reckless challenge with his foot too high up at worst.
I'll say it again. the force used has to be excessive for it to be red, and it wasn't.

The contact lasts a quarter-second, at most, I don't think there is much distinction to be had on 'initial' point of contact. It also sounds dangerously close to judging the challenge based on outcome, when the way it was carried out could have easily connected in the middle of the kneecap. There should be no room for players to challenge like that, it's the combination of height, studs and significant force that makes it endangerment.

 

[Kes]

I don't think the sanction should depend on whether a player has metal studs on or not. If this exact contact had been at torso height for example I don't think anyone would be calling for yellow.


The contact lasts a quarter-second, at most, I don't think there is much distinction to be had on 'initial' point of contact. It also sounds dangerously close to judging the challenge based on outcome, when the way it was carried out could have easily connected in the middle of the kneecap. There should be no room for players to challenge like that, it's the combination of height, studs and significant force that makes it endangerment.

There was no "significant" force.
That's why the ref (and VAR) went yellow.

Rocket science it ain't ...

 

[RustyRef]

The foot was high but the force was very minimal. Couldn't really complain if the decision was red, but certainly nowhere near enough doubt for VAR to get involved.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

There was no "significant" force.
That's why the ref (and VAR) went yellow.

Rocket science it ain't ...

VAR doesn't re-referee so all that can be taken from the non-intervention is that it wasn't a C&O error, don't think anyone has suggested it was

 

[socal lurker]

I don't think the sanction should depend on whether a player has metal studs on or not. If this exact contact had been at torso height for example I don't think anyone would be calling for yellow.

I don’t agree with that. I think less force is needed at the knee than the torso for SFP. Far easier to cause a serious injury on the knee. I think you are just disagreeing with others as to the amount of force here and whether it crosses the SFP threshold.