A&H

red-yellow-no card

Red - yellow - no card?

  • Red

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • Yellow

    Votes: 24 92.3%

  • No card

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    26
The Referee Store
Typical that all the replays have been slowed down (to emphasise the severity)
YC for me as there's no excessive force. The challenge did not wilfully endanger the opponent, although some refs will invent intent with these ones
 
I hate those ones in real time as I'm never quite sure how bad it is, if there is contact. :dead:
 
It looks really bad in slo mo, like no attempt to play the ball, and a cynical attempt to injure, with the attacker pulling out to try to mitigate and missing the ball... but that's slo mo... I'd understand red but yellow seems easier
 
Straight leg, studs high, ticking boxes for me. I suspect people would be saying different if the opponent's leg wasn't kicking through the ball and rather was planted, as that would be a leg breaker. I'd support a caution, but a red certainly wouldn't be wrong.
 
I would like to add a twist to this, since the blue/yellow completely misses the ball, if his kick did not end up to white player's studs but ended up kicking anywhere else, like white player's leg. thighs etc... would it be caution to the yellow/blue then?

and for those of you who wants non slow-mo version (although different angle and not as good)

http://tr.beinsports.com/lig/spor-t...18-2019/18/bursaspor-1-1-fenerbahce-mac-ozeti

1:23 is where this situation occurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
RustyRef said:
Straight leg, studs high, ticking boxes for me. I suspect people would be saying different if the opponent's leg wasn't kicking through the ball and rather was planted, as that would be a leg breaker. I'd support a caution, but a red certainly wouldn't be wrong.
Click to expand...
Contact is top of foot. The equivalent of a standing player having his foot stood on. Not like it was going through his ankle/shin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Green/white player's studs are pointing downwards and are a reasonable distance away from where yellow/black player is supposed to be kicking the ball (yellow/black missed the ball by a good foot). For me, this by no means fulfils the definition of UEF: "Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent". The only reason i am going yellow is more so because of the result which tends to prove disregard to danger.
 
one said:
Green/white player's studs are pointing downwards and are a reasonable distance away from where yellow/black player is supposed to be kicking the ball (yellow/black missed the ball by a good foot). For me, this by no means fulfils the definition of UEF: "Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent". The only reason i am going yellow is more so because of the result which tends to prove disregard to danger.
Click to expand...
I think he missed the ball because of the ”challenge” - it’s evasive action that maybe saves worse contact...
 
one said:
Green/white player's studs are pointing downwards and are a reasonable distance away from where yellow/black player is supposed to be kicking the ball (yellow/black missed the ball by a good foot). For me, this by no means fulfils the definition of UEF: "Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent". The only reason i am going yellow is more so because of the result which tends to prove disregard to danger.
Click to expand...
Really well argued! I was on the fence, but I think this logic has me persuaded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
watched the clip several times before casting my vote. the more I watched the clip, the more I leaned towards Yellow
 
These ones are tough, because, if you imagine you are playing, and the ball bouncing towards you, you keep eye on ball, you anticipate it at a height you can kick it, you swing back, all good intentions and you follow forward with your foot to kick the ball, as you do that, opponent is doing the exact same thing but a split second before/after you....one of you is going to make contact with the ball as intended, the other, is going to kick the others boot as it comes down from kicking the ball.... (hard to type I know but along those lines)...
 
This is a weird one....because the 'victim' has himself completely missed the ball as well. The fouling player, seems like he was making a black based on expecting the opponent to actually connect with the ball.

Sure, studs up onto a player's follow-through is very dangerous, and had the player kicked the ball and then been caught by studs like this it's an easy red.
But given that the 'victim' had no right or reason to be doing a wild airswing himself, I just don't know if I can say there's enough culpability for a red card.....though there's some risk.
A caution seems appropriate for me, and dfk. The 'victim' just has to share responsibility here. I'm not sending off a player because an opponent decided to kick his studs.

I could certainly see a reasoning for a red though

Big Cat said:
Typical that all the replays have been slowed down (to emphasise the severity)
YC for me as there's no excessive force. The challenge did not wilfully endanger the opponent, although some refs will invent intent with these ones
Click to expand...
invent? Intent isn't required for a RC. It can be a useful measure but certainly not required.
 
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard said:
This is a weird one....because the 'victim' has himself completely missed the ball as well. The fouling player, seems like he was making a black based on expecting the opponent to actually connect with the ball.

Sure, studs up onto a player's follow-through is very dangerous, and had the player kicked the ball and then been caught by studs like this it's an easy red.
But given that the 'victim' had no right or reason to be doing a wild airswing himself, I just don't know if I can say there's enough culpability for a red card.....though there's some risk.
A caution seems appropriate for me, and dfk. The 'victim' just has to share responsibility here. I'm not sending off a player because an opponent decided to kick his studs.


invent? Intent isn't required for a RC. It can be a useful measure but certainly not required.
Click to expand...
The ball is in a playable position, two players both make a legitimate play for the ball.....yes there's a foul, period. Neither reckless nor excessive force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top