Ramos taking off face mask

Nalbi

Active Member
#1
I'm pretty sure there isn't much to it. Sergio Ramos takes off his mask during the corner (to give himself a clearer view??), nothing comes to it. But a friend of mine and certainly quite a number of Barcelona fans' commentators have been arguing that had he scored the goal wouldn't stand and he had to be cautioned!!
Any thoughts?
 

alexgr

Active Member
#2
Can't see video because of the geo-location but I wonder if there's an argument to be made regarding player safety. Going to assume he's holding it in his hand, if he jumps and it catches a player in the eye, could be very painful indeed?
 

RustyRef

Moderator
Staff member
#6
Had it been a Spider Man mask that he had put on, as opposed to take off, then it would be a caution. But for me this is a total non story.
 

one

Well-Known Member
#7
Would you allow a player running around the field with a soft teddy bear in his hand? If not why should he be allowed to do it with a face mask?

Also another angle. If it is safe for him to play without it during a corner, should he be allowed to wear it during the game?

(can anyone tell my genuine dislike of Ramos?)
 

Mintyref

Well-Known Member
#8
Would you allow a player running around the field with a soft teddy bear in his hand? If not why should he be allowed to do it with a face mask?

Also another angle. If it is safe for him to play without it during a corner, should he be allowed to wear it during the game?

(can anyone tell my genuine dislike of Ramos?)
Yes, yes and yes again.....your just letting your prejudice affect your judgement.......
 

Sheffields Finest

Happily minding that Gap
#9
Would you allow a player running around the field with a soft teddy bear in his hand? If not why should he be allowed to do it with a face mask?

Also another angle. If it is safe for him to play without it during a corner, should he be allowed to wear it during the game?

(can anyone tell my genuine dislike of Ramos?)
We are not medical people, if a doctor (I presume) has given Ramos a mask to protect something who are we to say how it’s worn or temporarily removed. So long as it’s initially safe for him and other players around him I’m leaving it alone.

As an aside, Millwall fans stole part of a false leg of a SUFC fan this last weekend in trouble at The Den. They took it to the pub with them as a trophy!
 

one

Well-Known Member
#10
Fair enough but i still don't like Ramos :p.

TBH my general approach is, if its ITOOTR, then don't do anything that would be detrimental to your match control. This case is a very good example. Intervening will cause problems out of a non-issue.
 
#11
Here are my thoughts on it even though I cannot see the video.
1. I don't like Ramos either but.....
2. The item/device has already been deemed by the CR to not present a danger to other players so whit is the diference if he jumps in with it in hand or attached to his face? Now if he swings it into someone else then he may be committing a foul or misconduct.
3. It would be a stretch but the only thing possible I see is dangerous play if he is jeopardizing his own safety BUT I don't think that should be done as we are not doctor's and not our ability to make that call as it is not dangerous PLAY.
4. It is not compulsory equipment so he can really play with it or without it
5. I'm not his mom

For me, I don't really see a violation of LOTG. Play on. No issue unless the item itself poses a danger by it's nature or how it is used even though I do not care for Ramos or how he plays in general.
 
Last edited:

JamesL

Well-Known Member
#13
What if a player boot comes off he picks it up and he scores a goal before replaced.?
Lotg allow you now to continue and allow the goal and that is compulsory equipment.
This is non compulsory, causing no danger to any1... nothing to see here move along.

Quite possible people are getting confused back to a time where the above analogy was an offence.
 

Nalbi

Active Member
#14
What if a player boot comes off he picks it up and he scores a goal before replaced.?
Lotg allow you now to continue and allow the goal and that is compulsory equipment.
This is non compulsory, causing no danger to any1... nothing to see here move along.

Quite possible people are getting confused back to a time where the above analogy was an offence.
I believe so too, with references to the LoTG being extremely vague on behalf of those making the claims. He hasn't used it in any form to hinder his opponents or gain an advantage. He didn't use the mask to score the goal and I don't see it as a safety concern to his opponents.
 

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#15
Quite possible people are getting confused back to a time where the above analogy was an offence.
Very possibly but they must have fairly long memories - the amendment on players not having to leave the field immediately to correct problems with their compulsory equipment dates from 1992.
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
#16
Very possibly but they must have fairly long memories - the amendment on players not having to leave the field immediately to correct problems with their compulsory equipment dates from 1992.
That long ago? Fair enough.

I seem to recall Patrice Evra being cautioned for playing the ball having lost his boot much more recently than then... champions league game against Bayern munich possibly
 

McTavish

Well-Known Member
#17
What I don't understand is why he took it off so surreptiously. Was he hoping that his marker wouldn't recognise him until it was too late?
 

Peter Grove

Well-Known Member
#18
That long ago? Fair enough.

I seem to recall Patrice Evra being cautioned for playing the ball having lost his boot much more recently than then... champions league game against Bayern munich possibly
Yes and if memory serves, the consensus of opinion at the time was that it shouldn't have been a caution, unless the referee thought it constituted PIADM and again, most people thought it did not.
 

JamesL

Well-Known Member
#19
Yes and if memory serves, the consensus of opinion at the time was that it shouldn't have been a caution, unless the referee thought it constituted PIADM and again, most people thought it did not.
Thanks..I wasnt a referee at the time I dont think so it was just a vague memory. :)