QPR v WBA

[one]

Think we are all agreed that the correct decision in the OP is a red. This is relatively straightforward as it's clearly a foul. What are people's thoughts if the contact had been 'normal football contact' (say shoulder to shoulder) that wouldn't be penalised at all elsewhere on the pitch but the outcome had been the same?

It's those details that are used to categorise a challenge into CRUEF. A lunge in the air with speed, straight leg and studs showing sounds like a red card until I say it was 5 yards away from the opponent to block a shot which makes it a no foul.

A simple deliberate push away from the ball is a foul or sometimes ignored as trifling until I say it was deliberately into the post or a concrete barrier. Similar if it was a shoulder to shoulder charge.

So yes, awareness of what's where and the surrounds are part of my decision.

 

[JamesL]

Are we now punishing based on outcomes?
As @deusex says anywhere else on the pitch this is no more than a careless foul.

I'm struggling to see a red card in the action although I can see why people see safety endangerment. But you'd have to be 100% certain this was deliberate and not merely an undesired outcome.

 

[RustyRef]

Are we now punishing based on outcomes?
As @deusex says anywhere else on the pitch this is no more than a careless foul.

I'm struggling to see a red card in the action although I can see why people see safety endangerment. But you'd have to be 100% certain this was deliberate and not merely an undesired outcome.

If you forcefully push someone who is close to the perimeter barrier you know what is going to happen. They are going to hit the barrier or even worse end up in the crowd and potentially injure a spectator. There's absolutely no need for it, and actions have consequences.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Interesting perspective from Charlie Austin, he didn't seem overly fussed by it - "Its football" - and to paraphrase thought if there was anything malicious in it he would have expected teammates and the QPR bench to have reacted badly to it (which in the main they didn't).

Totally irrelevant to the LOTG arguments I know, but an interesting perspective and I think it does no harm whatsoever (at times!) to hear a very experienced player's perspective on something like this.

As an aside a similar incident occurred in a previous QPR game, without such a drastic outcome - QPR striker Dykes shoved Bournemouth defender Cahill in the back as he (Cahill) was shepherding the ball out.

Couple of Cahill's teammates came over to remonstrate , he pushed them away and shook Dykes' hand!

 

[JamesL]

If you forcefully push someone who is close to the perimeter barrier you know what is going to happen. They are going to hit the barrier or even worse end up in the crowd and potentially injure a spectator. There's absolutely no need for it, and actions have consequences.

As long term advocate of the. Removal of such perimeter barriers, especially the concrete (easily replaced by PVC equivalent) I do understand that the perimeter barrier presents a danger.

Whether we have to adjust our CRUEF thresholds for challenges out on the touchline that's another matter. I just can't see how that action, save for the environment, can be considered serious without any deliberateness or awareness. Of the offender.

What we are saying is, and this could happen in the same league is, with barriers foul and red, without just a foul, for the exact same in different scenarios which doesn't feel right.

The solution, as alluded to but will never happen at this level given the advertising revenues is to remove, or increase the distance to, the barriers.

 

[PinnerPaul]

As long term advocate of the. Removal of such perimeter barriers, especially the concrete (easily replaced by PVC equivalent) I do understand that the perimeter barrier presents a danger.

Whether we have to adjust our CRUEF thresholds for challenges out on the touchline that's another matter. I just can't see how that action, save for the environment, can be considered serious without any deliberateness or awareness. Of the offender.

What we are saying is, and this could happen in the same league is, with barriers foul and red, without just a foul, for the exact same in different scenarios which doesn't feel right.

The solution, as alluded to but will never happen at this level given the advertising revenues is to remove, or increase the distance to, the barriers.

As you say, won't happen, especially at that stadium, not physically possible without reducing the small maximum attendance figure even more!

 

[bester]

As you say, won't happen, especially at that stadium, not physically possible without reducing the small maximum attendance figure even more!

With the money involved in football, wouldn't be too hard to have some sort of air barrier sponsor board similar to speedway.

 

[PinnerPaul]

With the money involved in football, wouldn't be too hard to have some sort of air barrier sponsor board similar to speedway.

In the PL maybe but not for the majority in the Championship. No advertising such as the current moving lights, as there hasn't been for most of the time I have been going, still means there would be a wall close to the pitch. As I said above, a major ground rebuild that costs a fortune AND reduces attendance isn't going to happen!

 

[JamesL]

In the PL maybe but not for the majority in the Championship. No advertising such as the current moving lights, as there hasn't been for most of the time I have been going, still means there would be a wall close to the pitch. As I said above, a major ground rebuild that costs a fortune AND reduces attendance isn't going to happen! Anything that reduces income/profit isn't going to happen

Fixed

 

[PinnerPaul]

Fixed

'Profit'??????

Currently losing about £1M a month, and we're one of the 'better' clubs in that regard in that division!

 

[Will_A]

Are we now punishing based on outcomes?
As @deusex says anywhere else on the pitch this is no more than a careless foul.

I'm struggling to see a red card in the action although I can see why people see safety endangerment. But you'd have to be 100% certain this was deliberate and not merely an undesired outcome.

For me, there’s an easy analagy:

You’re on a night out and punch someone in the face. They stumble back, nothing else happens and you get arrested for assault.
Outcome - slap on the wrists and a fine probably.

Or…

You’re on a night out and punch someone in the face. They stumble back, hit their head on a curb and die.
You get arrested for manslaughter and end up with a 5 year prison sentence.

Same physical action but vastly different punishments dependant on the outcome.

I don’t see a case where a deliberate action that results in a head being split open isn’t deemed as endangering the safety.

 

[Anubis]

need use a lot of common sense and discretion.

a ground set up where there might be a wall. fence, whatever, near some part of the side of the pitch.

The reality is you cannot assess a tackle, push, different on that 5% area of the pitch simply due to the surroundings. If its deemed unsafe, or a safety concern, dont play.

'its ok to shoulder charge here, there, maybe there, oh but dont do it down there in line with the 18 cos there is a few bricks"

your pitch and surrounds are either deemed safe, or, unsafe. No provisos.

Of course that means assessing pitches that have been played on for years, we dont see ( for example) Lottus Rd being called off due to its set up.

its absolute farce to assess an incident different on one touchline to another based on surroundings.. If thats going to cloud your judgement on a call, dont play in the first place.

and yes I have had experience of paramedics being called to a semi pro game where a player was spun over a barrier and knocked out cold.
The home team chairman being a pathologist came in handy, fortunately we never got to his actual specialised skills being utilised.

 

[JamesL]

I don’t see a case where a deliberate action that results in a head being split open isn’t deemed as endangering the safety.

Happens all the time

2 players go for a header, one heads the ball the other heads his opponent, split head, foul, no sanction.

I am very reluctant to start punishing outcomes in football. Just because a player ends up with a broken leg following a challenge from an opponent does not automatically make it a red card challenge. You consider the action and whether that meets the threshold for excessive or less.

A careless foul could result in a pulled muscle, a broken foot bone, a sprained ankle and many other ailments we can and usually see as a result of excessive force challenges.

For me we can't suddenly invent a no foul Zone around the boundary area at some grounds and not others, in reality the solution is the barriers go if they pose that much danger to participants.

Like I say, if you are sure on the intent of the offender in the OP, yes he has to go, but if you aren't sure on that you're stuck wihh looking at the action and considering as you would anywhere else on the field of play.

 

[JamesL]

For me, there’s an easy analagy:

You’re on a night out and punch someone in the face. They stumble back, nothing else happens and you get arrested for assault.
Outcome - slap on the wrists and a fine probably.

Or…

You’re on a night out and punch someone in the face. They stumble back, hit their head on a curb and die.
You get arrested for manslaughter and end up with a 5 year prison sentence.

Same physical action but vastly different punishments dependant on the outcome.
.

Not sure where the rest of my post Went.

I see your point here but

1) a punch on a pitch is excessive force and both result in the same outcome.
2)yes I suppose you could apply your analogy to a push in the street too, I suppose
3) the punishment is only decided after a lengthy investigation, witness interrogation, and outcome decided by jury and judge not the arresting officer.
4) the law legislates on the charge in cases of manslaughter where football laws don't really do and where they kind of do is too significantly lesser extent.
5) a death is an extreme example, I suspect that the punishment would be not too dissimilar if you pushed someone over in the street an they grazed their hand or received a small laceration to their face.
6) this is not like a dogso where the laws give a list of considerations as to when a careless foul need be upgraded to a red card based on the outcome ie denial of a goal.
And in all my years when discussing SFP/VC no one has ever mentioned the perimeter as a consideration.

 

[Anubis]

Happens all the time

2 players go for a header, one heads the ball the other heads his opponent, split head, foul, no sanction.

I am very reluctant to start punishing outcomes in football. Just because a player ends up with a broken leg following a challenge from an opponent does not automatically make it a red card challenge. You consider the action and whether that meets the threshold for excessive or less.

A careless foul could result in a pulled muscle, a broken foot bone, a sprained ankle and many other ailments we can and usually see as a result of excessive force challenges.

For me we can't suddenly invent a no foul Zone around the boundary area at some grounds and not others, in reality the solution is the barriers go if they pose that much danger to participants.

Like I say, if you are sure on the intent of the offender in the OP, yes he has to go, but if you aren't sure on that you're stuck wihh looking at the action and considering as you would anywhere else on the field of play.

I been in crowd at two of the worst injuries you can think of

David Busst of Coventry at Old Trafford, I was behind that goal.
Alan Smith then of Manchester United, at Anfield

ok neither were tackles but perfect examples of how injuries do occur.

if they can happen without a tackle, they certainly can with one, and then throw in the surroundings.

nobody can account for every situation.

Years back Murdo McLeod got knocked out cold for Scotland, v Brazil without checking, he was in defensive wall and the ball was battered into him.
He gen could have been killed had it struck him a few inches to the side, as explained in years to come by the doctor.

we cannot account for everything

 

[one]

Are we now punishing based on outcomes?
As @deusex says anywhere else on the pitch this is no more than a careless foul.

I'm struggling to see a red card in the action although I can see why people see safety endangerment. But you'd have to be 100% certain this was deliberate and not merely an undesired outcome.

Wouldn't you say "endangers the safety of an opponent" is actually and outcome? And some other CRUEF criteria would be easier judged using an outcome as a consideration?

It's about considering outcome amongst many other considerations and a decision made on the balance.

 

[JamesL]

Wouldn't you say "endangers the safety of an opponent" is actually and outcome? And some other CRUEF criteria would be easier judged using an outcome as a consideration?

It's about considering outcome amongst many other considerations and a decision made on the balance.

But is it the push ie the "tackle or challenge that endangers the safety" or is the location and proximity of the advertising hoardings that endanger the safety?
It's not the tackle or challenge, it's what happens afterwards, that cause the problem here.

As I have said all along, if you see an intent or deliberateness off he pops, but bog standard careless push, that if you turned round 180 you wouldnt bat an eyelid at then that just can't then become a red card for me.

See it alot at old Trafford, with the dip, that's also very unsafe as very little stopping room, til your then headed down hill towards a barrier vs West ham where there's an athletics track around the pitch and lots of stopping room.
Same careless foul, in the same area of the pitch should and is always treat the same. Foul, nothing else.

 

[Anubis]

But is it the push ie the "tackle or challenge that endangers the safety" or is the location and proximity of the advertising hoardings that endanger the safety?
It's not the tackle or challenge, it's what happens afterwards, that cause the problem here.

As I have said all along, if you see an intent or deliberateness off he pops, but bog standard careless push, that if you turned round 180 you wouldnt bat an eyelid at then that just can't then become a red card for me.

See it alot at old Trafford, with the dip, that's also very unsafe as very little stopping room, til your then headed down hill towards a barrier vs West ham where there's an athletics track around the pitch and lots of stopping room.
Same careless foul, in the same area of the pitch should and is always treat the same. Foul, nothing else.

exactly, if your pitch is safe ( apart from), then its unsafe.


much ado about nothing here and lots of crystal balls.


never once have I heard of " pitch surroundings' being a consideration for assessing a sanction, in this country, oversees, working with current uefa observers, any coaching, match commanders, uefa delegates, nothing.
Cloest has been just general awareness of say, notorious fan sections, away fans etc

if 30 years of experience of all types of ground witn all levels of officials at all standards of football has never brought this consideration up, I pour scourn on internet randoms deciding otherwise.

 

[one]

But is it the push ie the "tackle or challenge that endangers the safety" or is the location and proximity of the advertising hoardings that endanger the safety?
It's not the tackle or challenge, it's what happens afterwards, that cause the problem here.

As I have said all along, if you see an intent or deliberateness off he pops, but bog standard careless push, that if you turned round 180 you wouldnt bat an eyelid at then that just can't then become a red card for me.

See it alot at old Trafford, with the dip, that's also very unsafe as very little stopping room, til your then headed down hill towards a barrier vs West ham where there's an athletics track around the pitch and lots of stopping room.
Same careless foul, in the same area of the pitch should and is always treat the same. Foul, nothing else.

Ok, we have shifted the reasoning to was this endangering the safety? So I am hoping my previous post on using outcome which wasn't specific to OP makes sense.

As for the OP, the answer to you question is both. One could have been changed at that time, the other couldn't. I see your point though. But for me it's not about doing it deliberately with the intent of hurting or endangering safety, it's about knowing it's going to happen but still going through with your action anyway.

 

[GraemeS]

Let's take this to it's logical extreme and then see if we can work backwards.

Player takes his hand, places it on the side of the opponents head and then pushes it quickly to the side, moving the opponent's head around a foot. Weird, aggressive, but he hasn't struck the opponent and hasn't actually injured him, so it's probably not worth a red for that action alone?

Now let's say he does the exact same action in the goalmouth, with the same action in that case being clearly designed to smash the opponent's head into the goalpost. At that point, a red card and a few weeks off football starts to seem like a clearly insufficient punishment, but the actual action is the same as in my previous paragraph. And there's no blaming an "unsafe pitch" in this case, because goalposts are a mandatory feature of the football pitch.

The point is that I don't think it's at all reasonable to say "oh that action would have been fine if not for some other obstacle". It's not like the goalposts suddenly appear after the push in my scenario, or the advertising hoardings have appeared out of nowhere after the charge in the OP. They are physical things that are know about to the players before they choose to take the action - and the fact they are there has most likely influenced the decision to take that action. It cannot be "just a bog standard careless push" in this context - by definition, it is a push into an obstacle and needs to be punished more severely because of that.