Red card Wrexham FC

[Sheffields Finest]

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.

Thanks for your humble opinion but it is just that, an opinion, and the educated guesswork at the end!! I'm sure there will be lots of similar incidents in the Prem and below this season that dont end in a straight red.... Lets see, I'll be checking your stated fact carefully!!!

 

[Nij]

I also am struggling to understand why this would be a red and as a new ref it would be really helpful if someone could explain how this meets the definition of violent conduct. Thanks

Consider it the other way around.
If the goalkeeper had gone to punch clear a ball but was a fraction of a second late, and instead caught the attacker on the chest, it would be a foul but only a caution or even no card, because the goalkeeper is allowed to play the ball like that.
If instead the attacker had headed the ball and it went elsewhere and the goalkeeper had come in afterwards and punched them in the chest, it would be a clear red card.

Same with this. Trying to kick a ball into the goal and being a little late might be careless or reckless, but unlikely to be SFP. Knowing the ball can't be kicked into the goal and kicking the goalkeeper anyway, is not intended to do anything but hurt the goalkeeper, and a red card.

 

[Ref253]

Consider it the other way around.
If the goalkeeper had gone to punch clear a ball but was a fraction of a second late, and instead caught the attacker on the chest, it would be a foul but only a caution or even no card, because the goalkeeper is allowed to play the ball like that.
If instead the attacker had headed the ball and it went elsewhere and the goalkeeper had come in afterwards and punched them in the chest, it would be a clear red card.

Same with this. Trying to kick a ball into the goal and being a little late might be careless or reckless, but unlikely to be SFP. Knowing the ball can't be kicked into the goal and kicking the goalkeeper anyway, is not intended to do anything but hurt the goalkeeper, and a red card.

That has helped make it clearer as to why it could be a red. I can also understand why only a yellow would be given by some on here based on the description of VC in LOTG.

 

[Justylove]

Thanks for your humble opinion but it is just that, an opinion, and the educated guesswork at the end!! I'm sure there will be lots of similar incidents in the Prem and below this season that dont end in a straight red.... Lets see, I'll be checking your stated fact carefully!!!

Notice you didn't answer the question I posed.

What is your course of action in this situation if instead of going to ground, the GK turns round and punches the attacker as an act of retaliation?

 

[JH]

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?

I am really struggling to understand the logic of anyone who would want to keep this player on the pitch.

The logic of yourselves as to why this is violent conduct is 'it's expected', and I agree that it is. I am not refereeing at that level and if I were to get there one day, maybe I would have to send that player off due to expectation of observers, clubs etc.

However, I am yet to see a convincing argument using the LOTG which tells me that this is a nailed-on red card.

'It's expected' doesn't promote consistency, consistency stems from us all reading the same LOTG, which I don't believe instructs me to send this player off for violent conduct.

'It's expected' is only a convenient explantion for this specific situation. If the goalkeeper doesn't go down or react, and instead throws the ball out, are you stopping play to give a red card? I assume not.

 

[zarathustra]

The logic of yourselves as to why this is violent conduct is 'it's expected', and I agree that it is. I am not refereeing at that level and if I were to get there one day, maybe I would have to send that player off due to expectation of observers, clubs etc.

However, I am yet to see a convincing argument using the LOTG which tells me that this is a nailed-on red card.

'It's expected' doesn't promote consistency, consistency stems from us all reading the same LOTG, which I don't believe instructs me to send this player off for violent conduct.

'It's expected' is only a convenient explantion for this specific situation. If the goalkeeper doesn't go down or react, and instead throws the ball out, are you stopping play to give a red card? I assume not.

So you don't believe that kicking someone in this fashion isn't violent conduct?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

So you don't believe that kicking someone in this fashion isn't violent conduct?

No,

 

[Justylove]

The logic of yourselves as to why this is violent conduct is 'it's expected', and I agree that it is. I am not refereeing at that level and if I were to get there one day, maybe I would have to send that player off due to expectation of observers, clubs etc.

However, I am yet to see a convincing argument using the LOTG which tells me that this is a nailed-on red card.

'It's expected' doesn't promote consistency, consistency stems from us all reading the same LOTG, which I don't believe instructs me to send this player off for violent conduct.

'It's expected' is only a convenient explantion for this specific situation. If the goalkeeper doesn't go down or react, and instead throws the ball out, are you stopping play to give a red card? I assume not.

Likewise, if the GK turns around and punches the attacker OR screams "f**k off you dirty c**t" to him at the top of his voice, you are obviously going to send the GK off for VC or OFFINABUS (that's nailed on), but what sanction are you going to apply to the attacker in these cases?

If you are going to apply a different sanction to the attacker based on the reaction of the GK, then you are refereeing by outcome, not by action.

 

[zarathustra]

No,

Why do you think this behaviour, the player kicking the goalkeeper, is acceptable?

 

[Big Cat]

It's not Violent Conduct by the dictionary definition (or as worded in the book for that matter)
However;
Aside from red being the expected decision, any other course of action opens up a can of worms for the rest of the game. Actions have consequences... end of

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Why do you think this behaviour, the player kicking the goalkeeper, is acceptable?

No I don’t and I have answered with my outcome in this incident. I’d love to watch some games referred by others, from the car park with some of the dismissed players

 

[zarathustra]

The laws of the game describe brutality as

Brutality
An act which is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent

They describe violent conduct as

Violent conduct
An action, which is not a challenge for the ball, which uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent or when a player deliberately strikes someone on the head or face unless the force used is negligible

So the action (kicking the goal keeper) is not a challenge for the ball, and it uses, or attempts to use excessive force (you can't challenge a keeper for the ball when he has it in his hands so any force is excessive), and the kick was deliberately violent, so also meets the definition of using brutality.

It is a red card by the letter of the law.

 

[CanuckRef]

It is excessive force because "far exceeds the use of necessary force." The necessary force is zero because there is absolutely no conceivable situation where the player needs to challenge a goalkeeper who has the ball firmly in his hands and is heading toward the edge of the penalty area to release the ball.

 

[zarathustra]

It's not Violent Conduct by the dictionary definition (or as worded in the book for that matter)
However;
Aside from red being the expected decision, any other course of action opens up a can of worms for the rest of the game. Actions have consequences... end of

erm, yes it is.

Violent conduct
An action, which is not a challenge for the ball, which uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent or when a player deliberately strikes someone on the head or face unless the force used is negligible

 

[Sheffields Finest]

So why didn’t the VAR send off the Bournemouth player then? It’s not as strict as you like to phrase!

 

[zarathustra]

So why didn’t the VAR send off the Bournemouth player then? It’s not as strict as you like to phrase!

VAR doesn't send anyone off, the same as a "normal" AR doesn't send anyone off. The referee decides whether to send someone off

I haven't seen the Bournemouth incident, but it is in no way similar to the one discussed in this thread.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

But VAR said no red card, the referee didn’t get a second look! So who made the decision?

 

[zarathustra]

But VAR said no red card, the referee didn’t get a second look! So who made the decision?

Not the VAR.

The referee makes the final decision.

Maybe they decided that the referee had not made a clear and obvious error, rather than that the could wasn't worthy of a card?

It is the problem with the way football has chosen to implement it

If it was similar to rugby, where the referee asks for a specific thing to be reviewed and watches on the big screen (where available) then people would have a better idea of what is going on

 

[JH]

Likewise, if the GK turns around and punches the attacker OR screams "f**k off you dirty c**t" to him at the top of his voice, you are obviously going to send the GK off for VC or OFFINABUS (that's nailed on), but what sanction are you going to apply to the attacker in these cases?

If you are going to apply a different sanction to the attacker based on the reaction of the GK, then you are refereeing by outcome, not by action.

You wouldn't send him off of the keeper played on and didn't go down. Don't pretend you would.

 

[JH]

So the action (kicking the goal keeper) is not a challenge for the ball, and it uses, or attempts to use excessive force (you can't challenge a keeper for the ball when he has it in his hands so any force is excessive), and the kick was deliberately violent, so also meets the definition of using brutality.

An action (pushing someone off the ball) is not a challenge for the ball, and it uses, or attempts to use excessive force (you can't challenge for the ball if it is not there so any force is excessive)...

Yet I'm sure you'd give a caution.

See how it works?