Observation

[SarcyE]

I was at a game as spectator on the weekend and unfortunately had to leave before I could try and speak to the ref for advice/reasons for one of his decisions.

It was just before half time, defending player fouls attacker just outside the box, as attacker got up he appeared to push down on the defender and stand/stamp on him whilst he was very vocal at the ref “what was that” “that type of game is it” “you mates with this lot or something” etc at same time , the injured players brother (sub) and a fan enters the field shouting and threatening the attacker, ref walks to attackers manager and said as I told you before, any dissent and I want them off so sub him off, he is subbed off and the defending player is still on the ground, he’s got a gash and leg swelling as he was stamped/stood on by attacker, ref then goes over and tells the sub to go off, talks to his manager and says I’ve seen the injury and now he’s off so no sub and called half time early.

What I was unsure of is if the ref saw the stamp surely he should have sent him off there and then, can he tell him to be subbed then check the injury and decide to change it to a red? Also should he have punished the sub who came on? He was allowed to be subbed on shortly into the second half so don’t believe any punishment was given.

 

[OldNavyRef]

Probably a friendly and the referee is trying to avoid the club being fined and the Friendly turning into a 10 v 11.

This is absolutely not what anyone should be doing.

 

[Homer Ref]

Can the ref not change his mind if games hasn't restarted?

 

[SarcyE]

Well he did turn it into a 10v11 but my question was more a can you change a decision based off how an injury looks after the event? Player stamped could have had bruising/cut from elsewhere that was added to with stamp. Just never seen a situation where ref has changed his mind like that without talking to a linesman or something similar.

It was a friendly and my understanding is the ref hasn’t sent any information to the league about anything other than the red

 

[Russell Jones]

Well he did turn it into a 10v11 but my question was more a can you change a decision based off how an injury looks after the event? Player stamped could have had bruising/cut from elsewhere that was added to with stamp. Just never seen a situation where ref has changed his mind like that without talking to a linesman or something similar.

It was a friendly and my understanding is the ref hasn’t sent any information to the league about anything other than the red

Whilst it's unusual for a referee to change their decision having seen the extent of an injury, it's certainly not unheard of. Better practice might be to assess the injuries prior to the issuing of the sanction (when asking if the player needs treatment) in order to see if they shed further light on the intensity / contact point of a challenge.

 

[Kes]

Whilst it's unusual for a referee to change their decision having seen the extent of an injury, it's certainly not unheard of. Better practice might be to assess the injuries prior to the issuing of the sanction (when asking if the player needs treatment) in order to see if they shed further light on the intensity / contact point of a challenge.

Indeed.
I seem to recall Martin Atkinson doing it to (Son) a Spurs player a few seasons back where the challenge itself was no more than reckless but he went red after seeing the injury caused. This however is not good practice since the referee (as you know) has to consider the nature of the challenge (CREF) and nothing more.
Unless I'm mistaken, the player's red card was overturned and downgraded to yellow(?)

 

[Kes]

I was at a game as spectator on the weekend and unfortunately had to leave before I could try and speak to the ref for advice/reasons for one of his decisions.

It was just before half time, defending player fouls attacker just outside the box, as attacker got up he appeared to push down on the defender and stand/stamp on him whilst he was very vocal at the ref “what was that” “that type of game is it” “you mates with this lot or something” etc at same time , the injured players brother (sub) and a fan enters the field shouting and threatening the attacker, ref walks to attackers manager and said as I told you before, any dissent and I want them off so sub him off, he is subbed off and the defending player is still on the ground, he’s got a gash and leg swelling as he was stamped/stood on by attacker, ref then goes over and tells the sub to go off, talks to his manager and says I’ve seen the injury and now he’s off so no sub and called half time early.

What I was unsure of is if the ref saw the stamp surely he should have sent him off there and then, can he tell him to be subbed then check the injury and decide to change it to a red? Also should he have punished the sub who came on? He was allowed to be subbed on shortly into the second half so don’t believe any punishment was given.

To be honest, the way you describe it, it sounds like VC to me. Had the referee stopped play for the original challenge? If not then it can surely only be VC and a straight red which is never determined by the damage done, only the force used.

 

[RefereeX]

Indeed.
I seem to recall Martin Atkinson doing it to (Son) a Spurs player a few seasons back where the challenge itself was no more than reckless but he went red after seeing the injury caused. This however is not good practice since the referee (as you know) has to consider the nature of the challenge (CREF) and nothing more.
Unless I'm mistaken, the player's red card was overturned and downgraded to yellow(?)

This is one that historically irks me. I don't believe it was overturned.
MA actually had his YC out his pocket and then when he saw the injury he changed to red. Understandable, but it was the first season we had VAR and they didn't get involved, and if it was appealed and overturned I never saw that it happened.

 

[DavidObs]

It would have been Serious Foul Play and not violent conduct (initial error on my part here from initially reading original post too quickly and should be VC), though I do not consider it to be bad practice to consider the severity of an injury, though also to take into account that severe injuries can occur when not even been challenged by an opponent. The quality of a Referee is being aware of all factors/considerations before coming to an accurate/appropriate outcome.

 

[OldNavyRef]

@Kes It is an evidence gather situation.

If you are wondering if it was studs up or not, then a player lowers his sock to show you a perfect mould of the oppositions boot down the back of his calf.

Think about something similar for biting. Two players jostling, player goes down holding shoulder. He says player just bit him, he has teeth marks on shoulder, you sorta seen it, but didn't see the bite.

You are unlikely in that situation going to tell the player, even though it happened in front of you, and you have the teeth marks there to prove it. You didn't see the specific bite.

I am obviously using extreme examples. But you are pulling out an incident from a few seasons back.

 

[Kevin0954]

It would have been Serious Foul Play and not violent conduct, though I do not consider it to be bad practice to consider the severity of an injury, though also to take into account that severe injuries can occur when not even been challenged by an opponent. The quality of a Referee is being aware of all factors/considerations before coming to an accurate/appropriate outcome.

SFP involves excessive force / brutality when challenging for the ball.
VC involves excessive force / brutality when no challenge for the ball is involved.
Not sure why this is not seen as VC given the circumstances detailed.

 

[Kes]

@Kes It is an evidence gather situation.

If you are wondering if it was studs up or not, then a player lowers his sock to show you a perfect mould of the oppositions boot down the back of his calf.

Think about something similar for biting. Two players jostling, player goes down holding shoulder. He says player just bit him, he has teeth marks on shoulder, you sorta seen it, but didn't see the bite.

You are unlikely in that situation going to tell the player, even though it happened in front of you, and you have the teeth marks there to prove it. You didn't see the specific bite.

I am obviously using extreme examples. But you are pulling out an incident from a few seasons back.

I totally get all that mate.

But in the examples you give, you're unlikely to get the time to "gather evidence" as you put it and still operate as per the LOTG which as you already know, make no mention of using "damage assessment" or retrospective evidence to change your original decision.

 

[DavidObs]

SFP involves excessive force / brutality when challenging for the ball.
VC involves excessive force / brutality when no challenge for the ball is involved.
Not sure why this is not seen as VC given the circumstances detailed.

Yes my mistake, I misread/sped read the original post - yes to violent conduct following a stamp.