RefSix

REA vs BC

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I can see where he is coming from. SFP doesn't necessarily have to be using excessive force as long as it endangers the safety of an opponent. For me this one doesn't but it is close. I can see why one might think it does.
Apologies @Big Cat if I misunderstood your post.
I read it that you were saying that SFP says a lunge with one or 2 feet is SFP and that you weren't picking up on the fact that this still needs the excessive force element, which is the point I was making.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Yeh, I mean, should I chose to dismiss a player for leaving the ground with two feet, I don't expect an Observer to tell me I'm wrong to for doing so.
Like I say, if there's a bell curve of leniency, you can guess which side of the curve I'm on, but I'm expecting a pro player to have an early bath for this
Depends, if he just jumped for a header I'd be worried ;)
The key for an observer is in the language you use.
Let's take this clip, if you say you dismissed purely on the fact he used two feet and that's what SFP says, then that's wrong in law.
If you say he used two feet and in my opinion used excessive force, I'm moving you into the correct in law category, and I might give you an off the record advisory around your bar for excessive force and SFP.
 

Alex Rush-Fear

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
The definition of SFP requires a lunge to use excessive force. The force used here is quite low. Even at full speed the intensity and velocity of the challenge is pretty tame and he appears to be in control, demonstrated by the fact he is able to avoid a collision with the player.
I'm in the caution camp. Fits into reckless definition quite nicely.
If you have a video of the challenge in full speed then please can you post it, because from the vid above he appears to be running in at speed, lunges in with both feet off the ground (i.e. is no longer in control), and the only reason there is no collision with the opponent is because the opponent can see the lunge coming and moves his foot out of the way just in time.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
Level 5 Referee
If you have a video of the challenge in full speed then please can you post it, because from the vid above he appears to be running in at speed, lunges in with both feet off the ground (i.e. is no longer in control), and the only reason there is no collision with the opponent is because the opponent can see the lunge coming and moves his foot out of the way just in time.

Yep. That's how I'm seeing it as well. His opponent was potentially looking at a serious injury had he not reacted in time...
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Is SFP correct in law without contact?
Yeh. Its about challenging for the ball or not which makes the difference between. SFP /Vc
If you have a video of the challenge in full speed then please can you post it, because from the vid above he appears to be running in at speed, lunges in with both feet off the ground (i.e. is no longer in control), and the only reason there is no collision with the opponent is because the opponent can see the lunge coming and moves his foot out of the way just in time.
Fair point, I actually watched this yesterday and in my mind there was much less intensity, but I hadn't realised I had watched it in slow motion!!
So yes, I'd like to see full speed too 😁
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Oh that makes it ok then does it? 🤨

In fairness I didn't say that it did :)

There will be collisions in football that cause injury, that doesn't mean it has to be a red card. For the second one I just think his foot is moving in a natural movement and has caught his opponent. For a red there I'd want to have some level of confidence that he had "done him" intentionally. I think he initially decides he is going to try and kick the ball, but then thinks better off it as that really would be dangerous, and his foot has to go somewhere.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
For a red there I'd want to have some level of confidence that he had "done him" intentionally
I don't think this should be the case at all. There are time that we consider contact incidental (or normal sporting contact) in which case it is not penalise even if it causes injury. But that is far from saying for this to be red there has to be intent involved. For me in this case, intent only sways it towards VC from SFP.

Incidental contact is not penalised when it happens despite the player takes all care. In this case the player knows (or should have known) an opponent is in front of him and should not have attempted to play the ball leading with his studs. This can't be incidental contact because due care was not taken.
Consider a scissors kick with all intent for the ball but still kicking an opponent who gets there first in the head. Or a similar incident a couple of seasons back when Mane was kicked in the head (or was he the kicker?) by someone attempting to control the ball high.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
I don't think this should be the case at all. There are time that we consider contact incidental (or normal sporting contact) in which case it is not penalise even if it causes injury. But that is far from saying for this to be red there has to be intent involved. For me in this case, intent only sways it towards VC from SFP.

Incidental contact is not penalised when it happens despite the player takes all care. In this case the player knows (or should have known) an opponent is in front of him and should not have attempted to play the ball leading with his studs. This can't be incidental contact because due care was not taken.
Consider a scissors kick with all intent for the ball but still kicking an opponent who gets there first in the head. Or a similar incident a couple of seasons back when Mane was kicked in the head (or was he the kicker?) by someone attempting to control the ball high.
I think you're thinking of when he got sent off vs Man City for catching Ederson in he chest with his boot when going for a high ball?

I'm still sticking with yellow for this. 2-footed challenges aren't innately dangerous, they become dangerous because they often result in the tackler having no control over where they go and as a result, impacting the opponent forcefully and high on the leg. Neither of those end results were possible in this case, because although he did leave the ground to tackle, he had landed comfortably before he made contact with the ball. Not safe, not legal - but not excessively forceful or dangerous either. Yellow feels fine.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I think you're thinking of when he got sent off vs Man City for catching Ederson in he chest with his boot when going for a high ball?

I'm still sticking with yellow for this. 2-footed challenges aren't innately dangerous, they become dangerous because they often result in the tackler having no control over where they go and as a result, impacting the opponent forcefully and high on the leg. Neither of those end results were possible in this case, because although he did leave the ground to tackle, he had landed comfortably before he made contact with the ball. Not safe, not legal - but not excessively forceful or dangerous either. Yellow feels fine.
I was referring to the second clip.
 

Alex Rush-Fear

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
Neither of those end results were possible in this case, because although he did leave the ground to tackle, he had landed comfortably before he made contact with the ball. Not safe, not legal - but not excessively forceful or dangerous either. Yellow feels fine.
He makes contact with the ground at the same time as he makes contact with the ball - certainly hadn't "landed comfortably" before then! He's got absolutely no control over himself until after the point at which he would have probably obliterated the opponent's ankle ligaments had he not seen it coming and taken evasive action.
 

markref

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
I'm in the red camp for this because he is on the ground when he goes past the player but has no control and has straight legs through the ball. The player sees him coming and gets out of the way or he's getting seriously injured.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
He makes contact with the ground at the same time as he makes contact with the ball - certainly hadn't "landed comfortably" before then! He's got absolutely no control over himself until after the point at which he would have probably obliterated the opponent's ankle ligaments had he not seen it coming and taken evasive action.
Not being funny, but there's at least one ball-width between the point where he contacts the ball and the point where you are hypothesising that the opponent's foot might have been!

I'm envisioning the horrible leg-breaking 2-footed tackle you all seem to have seen and I'm sorry, but this is simply a notch below that in terms of intensity and danger, and a notch above in terms of control. That's enough to take it down to yellow.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I think we have a slow mo issue here.. Anyone got this in real time? Let's see if our opinions change..
 
Top