Red card Wrexham FC
- Thread starter Kent Ref
- Start date
- Status
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I'm happy with a red card for that.
If a similar foul had been committed during "normal" play, i.e. challenging a defender for the ball I don't think it would even be a caution.
But, the keeper had the ball in his hands, the player cannot legally challenge him for the ball, so to kick him can be nothing other than violent conduct.
If a similar foul had been committed during "normal" play, i.e. challenging a defender for the ball I don't think it would even be a caution.
But, the keeper had the ball in his hands, the player cannot legally challenge him for the ball, so to kick him can be nothing other than violent conduct.
This has been a discussion before, how can where the ball is make something violent/not violent? I know what law says about challenging for the ball, but that kick was not inherently violent. At all.
But Violent Conduct in the LOTG does not state the part about 'player cannot legally challenge him' being violent conduct.
There was a 1000 times more brutal foul than this in the Prem this weekend with the high boot stamp and the VAR went 'yellow'.... Some people need to step off their high horse a bit, this is as mild an orange as it gets....Petulant trip yes, not really violent in any real sense!
If I was observing there I would certainly be expecting a red card. Of course I would have probably missed it real time, but in the National League the observers have to review such decisions using the DVD.
It isn't an accidental tangle of legs, he has kicked him. It was a deliberate act, the ball isn't even vaguely playable as the keeper is holding it, the only possible outcome there is a red card. Which presumably is why the offender walked off without even the slightest protest, he knew exactly what he had done.
It isn't an accidental tangle of legs, he has kicked him. It was a deliberate act, the ball isn't even vaguely playable as the keeper is holding it, the only possible outcome there is a red card. Which presumably is why the offender walked off without even the slightest protest, he knew exactly what he had done.
Is it violent though? Or is it a petulant little kick that could easily be sorted with a caution for USB? From your observing point of view I know your answer, from your common sense point of view?
Any kick there is excessive force, as the force that should be used is zero given the keeper has the ball in his hands. I've said the same in the past when players have been sent off for fouls when the ball isn't playable, the expectation now at senior levels is red for that.
If you were waiting for a bus and someone came and did that to you would you think it was acceptable behaviour? I doubt anyone would, so why would anyone think it becomes acceptable on a football pitch?
Also, to reiterate what I said earlier, look at the reaction of the player. He knows he has been caught and walks without a peep, why should he be allowed to stay on when he has just walked up to someone and kicked them?
Thanks. That is the first explination where I can see why it is a Red for VC, as the expected force is zero.
I am not sure the waiting for a bus analogy is useful for me as there are lots of cautionable behaviour which I would view as unacceptable at a bus stop!
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
It's violent conduct because he should t be using any force at all, because he can't challenge for the ball.
It wasn't even a badly timed challenge, he just kicked the keeper, probably hoping the ref didn't see.
Why therefore are players not dismissed for aggressively pushing one another?
As is the norm for football, the actual law precedes what's in the book. I know that a kick is red, whilst forceful shoving or antler locking is yellow, but how would a newbie necessarily know these things
Last edited:
Law 20.....making it up as you go along!! Worked for me, seems others too!!
This argument is all sorts of wrong.
I can think of infinite situations where players do not need to use force, but do so, when not challenging for the ball. It's easy.
A push off the ball? Excessive force. Red card.
Body-check with the ball out of playing distance? Excessive force. Red card.
Players grappling for the ball at a throw-in? Excessive force. Red card.
You are conveniently bringing the VERY vague term of 'excessive force' into this despite it being inconsistent with how we punish a variety of things on the pitch (AA for example).
Justylove
RefChat Addict
Lowest levels of the game, likelihood is that the GK isn't reacting like that and you could quite possibly "manage" the situation.
However as you go up the levels to senior county leagues, supply leagues and above, it's a red all day long. I'd wager any referee that sees it and doesn't send off at L4 and avove isn't likely to be refereeing at that standard for long.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
But this isn't a push off the ball.
This isn't players grappling for the ball at a throw.
This isn't even a mistimed tackle.
Players get sent off all the time for "kicking out" after they've been fouled. David Beckham getting sent off is a very good example. Are you saying that that would t be violent conduct either?
So on that logic you’re sending off for every trip??
In a trip, there is most likely contact and that contact is probably excessive compared to not tripping him? IMO this was a petulant trip and not a full kick out boot at him which quite rightly would have seen red.
Football refereeing has certainly hardened to simple stuff over the years, you can make a case for red in just about any point of contact really! Madness!
No, it wasn't a trip, at least not in the football sense of a trip. Petulant yes I can just about agree with, but it was an unprovoked kick at an opponent.
I am really struggling to understand the logic of anyone who would want to keep this player on the pitch.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
While it isn't a full on boot to the nuts, neither is it a little trip. It is a deliberate kick.
I suspect the hardening towards seemingly minor things like this is due to the evolution of the game, players don't enjoy getting kicked all over the pitch.
It doesn't matter whether they're playing in the premier League, or division 5 of the dog and duck league.
one
RefChat Addict
I am not quite with zero force off the ball for everything. Even with the lotg that (kind of) applies for strikes to the head only. Even for that, 'negligible' strikes are not red cards.
But as a general rule, I consider any off the ball act that has intent to hurt an opponent an act of violent conduct. The word 'brutality' used in lotg is a little misleading. It sounds like an act that only a hardened criminal would do. To put it in perspective, the act in OP is considered assault in laws of the land.
But as a general rule, I consider any off the ball act that has intent to hurt an opponent an act of violent conduct. The word 'brutality' used in lotg is a little misleading. It sounds like an act that only a hardened criminal would do. To put it in perspective, the act in OP is considered assault in laws of the land.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
Nope I'm not sending off for every trip, I'm just highlighting that in this case whilst what the player has done is not a full blooded kick, it's a red card.
What would you have done if instead of the GK going to ground, he turned round and punched the attacker? Sent off only the GK, or sent them both off?
In the pub games you refereed, because by your own admission you had no interest in progressing, you might just have got away with a dressing down (then again you might not, based on potential player retribution), however as you go up through the levels it would become clear to you that the only course of action is a send off.
- Status