RefSix

Rangers vs Dundee Utd

Tealeaf

Lighting the darkest hour
Staff member
Level 5 Referee
Just seen it on Sportscene. In real time it didn’t look much. However on reverse angle I’d have no problems with a red. Above the knee and causes an obvious injury to the thigh of Morelos.

I’ll leave the hyperbolic criticism to those on other fora, but cannot condemn the original decision at all because it really did look innocuous.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
It's always a bit distorting to only see a slow mo of a play like this. But what I think I see doesn't warrant a red IMHO. There is nothing out of control or wild--he successfully kicks the ball away and the opponent who is unable to play the ball runs through. There is certainly not excessive force or brutality--it's a routine play away of the ball. And I'm hard pressed to hang a red here on endangering an opponent. Injuries happen without reds--and even without fouls.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
It all comes down to if the kicker deliberately extended his foot and held it up just a little longer to make contact with the opponent after kicking the ball, or is it just the natural follow through of the kick. On this replay angle from the camera, I can't make up my mind and if I see it the same way on the field, I am not sanctioning.

Interesting to point out this can't be a yellow. It's either a red or nothing.
 

Richard smith

Well-Known Member
Level 6 Referee
I AM of the No red card line of thinking
The foot of the offender has caught the incoming player
 

Nij

Well-Known Member
No sanction.
The red player kicks away the ball to prevent the blue opponent taking it at speed.
That blue opponent then runs at speed into the leg which is still in follow-through movement.

If the red player had missed the ball and then caught the blue opponent, absolutely a card, probably dismissal for SFP.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Ok I am playing devil's advocate here for sake of debate and a better analysis/debate of why this is not SFP. Or if you like, presenting a flip side.
Let's say the the blue opponent was sliding in on the ground for a block. Red player kicks the ball over him and steps on blue player's knee (or head) on follow through. Is that still play on?
 

Degnann

SFA Rookie
Level 7 Referee
Ok I am playing devil's advocate here for sake of debate and a better analysis/debate of why this is not SFP. Or if you like, presenting a flip side.
Let's say the the blue opponent was sliding in on the ground for a block. Red player kicks the ball over him and steps on blue player's knee (or head) on follow through. Is that still play on?
Alot of fans are comparing it to this.
I know they are both different however.

 

AlexF

RefChat Addict
I should have said IMO. If you consider this a foul the given that it is studs on the knees then it has to be considered excessive force.
No. The point of contact isn't all that matters. That's a starting point.

You need to take into account the degree of force too.

There was an excellent one in a Europa League game last year that was studs into the knee... but with a very low amount of force (the sliding player was pulling the leg back and his body momentum had almost stopped when contact was made). Was cautioned. And rightly so.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
No. The point of contact isn't all that matters. That's a starting point.

You need to take into account the degree of force too.

There was an excellent one in a Europa League game last year that was studs into the knee... but with a very low amount of force (the sliding player was pulling the leg back and his body momentum had almost stopped when contact was made). Was cautioned. And rightly so.
Didn't think I needed to explain it that far given the injury. Not that the outcome determines the sanction but it is pretty obvious on this one.

Surely you are not saying this incident can be considered reckless.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Didn't think I needed to explain it that far given the injury. Not that the outcome determines the sanction but it is pretty obvious on this one.

Surely you are not saying this incident can be considered reckless.
Given the definition of reckless ie acts with disregard to the consequences to his opponent - absolutely you can. I happen to think that would have been the correct outcome here.

Yes he got the ball, I don't feel he was acting without precaution, but more disregard for the consequence to his opponent, I don't feel the force used was excessive. :)
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
We will just have to disagree. If he has acted with disregard to consequences with studs to knee and injuring the opponent, doesn't that automatically mean endangering safety?

Keep in mind everything UEF is also reckless and careless but the reverse is not true.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
We will just have to disagree. If he has acted with disregard to consequences with studs to knee and injuring the opponent, doesn't that automatically mean endangering safety?

Keep in mind everything UEF is also reckless and careless but the reverse is not true.
No, not necessarily. There are times where contact with the knee causing injury wouldn't even be a foul. You punish the action, not the outcome.

Your last statement is also not true. Acting without precaution, very different to using excessive force and vice versa. All three are separate entities and are linked only by way of escalation of a players action.
 

spuddy1878

RefChat Addict
Comparing the two tackles.

I think the original one certainly could be a yellow for reckless, i can also see why nothing would be given at all and i can see an argument for a red card although that wouldnt be my decision.

The second one for me very different, thats clearly excessive force for me.
 

Jtpetherick1

Active Member
Level 4 Referee
Its an interesting one this.
So often referees (and players, fans and coaches) use phrases like 'out of control' but this cannot really by applied here. The player is playing the ball and doesn't move his eyes from them so I think he is playing the ball and is perfectly in control off that action - he cannot be expected to not make the challenge on account of what appears to be a poor touch from the Rangers player. So he is in control until the Rangers player interferes. I'm sure that makes little sense outside of my own head but I'd be happy with no card - though I can see game management benefitting from a caution.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Its an interesting one this.
So often referees (and players, fans and coaches) use phrases like 'out of control' but this cannot really by applied here. The player is playing the ball and doesn't move his eyes from them so I think he is playing the ball and is perfectly in control off that action - he cannot be expected to not make the challenge on account of what appears to be a poor touch from the Rangers player. So he is in control until the Rangers player interferes. I'm sure that makes little sense outside of my own head but I'd be happy with no card - though I can see game management benefitting from a caution.
The phrase from players that this thread has brought to mind for me is "They're the same ref!!!" or "What about that one ref???". There are two clips in this thread, posted as if they're essentially two versions of the same incident. For me, they're so incredibly different I can barely see the similarities!

Unless you can somehow determine intent, I'm seeing nothing more than an unfortunate collision in the act of playing the ball in the OP. In the clip posted in response to that, I see a clear, pre-meditated attempt to injure an opponent, including an obvious change of approach to the ball in order to ensure contact is made - red card is the least I'd want to see for that! But as @Degnann points out, fans are trying to claim they're somehow "the same"?!?!?
 
Top