The Ref Stop

Red Yellow or No card

Red - Yellow - No Card

  • Red

    Votes: 3 7.7%

  • Yellow

    Votes: 20 51.3%

  • No Card

    Votes: 16 41.0%
  • Total voters
    39

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Geez, all these yellow cards, red cards and all for such innocuous tackles I hope some of you lot have some spare false teeth in your back pocket, as @spuddy1878 said no-one is expecting sanction here.... only a few keyboard spoilsports on here... Many tackles deserve carded sanction, not this one though!!!
 
The Ref Stop
Sheffields Finest said:
Geez, all these yellow cards, red cards and all for such innocuous tackles I hope some of you lot have some spare false teeth in your back pocket, as @spuddy1878 said no-one is expecting sanction here.... only a few keyboard spoilsports on here... Many tackles deserve carded sanction, not this one though!!!
Click to expand...
I can understand those that argue a lemon for leading with the studs and a late challenge.....a completely faulty premise but hey ho, they're entitled to an opinion. But as for those supporting a red card.........
 
Although this started as a debate about an unclear incident based on a slow motion replay, it illustrates a consistency in our individual tolerance levels. By necessity, an ambitious referee needs to start out reasonably early. This precludes that ref from becoming experienced as a player and I do think this renders such referees at a disadvantage. I feel that I've gained a rounded perspective on what constitutes 'foul play' because I've been the victim of it and more often the perpetrator. Whereas I suspect young referees are taught to recognise this in the classroom only. Sometimes in football, contact just happens, there's no premeditation, no malice, no disregard for opponent's safety, just two players fully committed to the art of winning.
I might be wrong of course and my view may change with time, but that's where i'm at with this discussion at this instant. I should add that there are lots of contributors on this forum who i respect and my attitude is being moulded, sometimes despite friction I might initiate
 
spuddy1878 said:
So does the other fella.

For me the fact that both players are committing similar offences (granted one makes contact) is why im letting it go. if you wave play on there i dont think you're getting many complaints, you would get more complaints if you stopped it.
Click to expand...

One player literally kicks the ball in a conventional method using the laces of the boot. The other attempts a kick that wouldnt look out of place in a Jackie Chan movie and fails to make any contact with the ball and then makes contact with his opponents foot/ankle. This is not normal football contact, this is a foul. The player kicking the ball, imo, isnt even close to committing an offence. Its not the height of the feet thats the issue here. The issue is a player attempting to win a ball, using an unconventional method of kicking the ball and failing to make any contact with the ball.
 
spuddy1878 said:
A bent leg as far as im aware isnt mentioned in any LOTG.
Click to expand...

No but the word dangerous is, and one of those challenges was a hell of a lot more dangerous than the other. Straight leg with studs showing at waist height sets all kinds of alarm bells ringing.
 
JamesL said:
One player literally kicks the ball in a conventional method using the laces of the boot. The other attempts a kick that wouldnt look out of place in a Jackie Chan movie and fails to make any contact with the ball and then makes contact with his opponents foot/ankle. This is not normal football contact, this is a foul. The player kicking the ball, imo, isnt even close to committing an offence. Its not the height of the feet thats the issue here. The issue is a player attempting to win a ball, using an unconventional method of kicking the ball and failing to make any contact with the ball.
Click to expand...
Or he wasn't quite as skilful, quick or athletic and mistimed it by a millisecond..... Just saying!!!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Or he wasn't quite as skilful, quick or athletic and mistimed it by a millisecond..... Just saying!!!
Click to expand...
Correct. But the fact he "mistimed" it suggested he didn't take the appropriate care to time his challenge correctly. Therefore a careless challenge (at minimum).
 
JamesL said:
I can accept no card. And yes the ball is there to be played. But he doesnt win it or play it. This is one of those "50/50s that can go either way" when in reality its not actually a 5050 its more a 5248 so he ends up being late and fouling.
Click to expand...
The ball bounces from his foot right after the yellow jersey "plays" the ball. Does it count? If this happened on a goal line and he blocked the ball going in then he would have been celebrated :) not disagreeing with you though just pointing how much room for judgement can there be in this game.
 
Engin Ataman said:
The ball bounces from his foot right after the yellow jersey "plays" the ball. Does it count? If this happened on a goal line and he blocked the ball going in then he would have been celebrated :) not disagreeing with you though just pointing how much room for judgement can there be in this game.
Click to expand...
Just disagree with him, he prefers that.... He's wrong, you're right...... let him deal with it!!! :smoke::smoke::smoke:
 
Big Cat said:
By chance? I'd assert that neither player would have premeditated their foot position
Click to expand...
And I assert that premeditation is not a condition foul for or a sanction :)

Sheffields Finest said:
stop looking for stuff that isn’t that bad!
Click to expand...
Now you are twisting things to fit your argument. The actual saying is "stop looking for stuff that isn't there" and this one IS there, right in front of me. Studs into the ankle.

Most of the arguments I see here against a foul or a card are the ones you commonly hear from players when they deservedly get a card or foul. He didn't mean it, he was going for the ball, how about the other player, it was a 50-50, it's a contact sport...
 
Last edited:
one said:
And I assert that premeditation is not a condition foul for or a sanction :)


Now you are twisting things to fit your argument. The actual saying is "stop looking for stuff that isn't there" and this one IS there, right in front of me. Studs into the ankle.

Most of the arguments I see here against a foul or a card are the ones you commonly hear from players when they deservedly get a card or foul. He didn't mean it, he was going for the ball, how about the other player, it was a 50-50, it's a contact sport...
Click to expand...
Who’s twisting now, saying something isn’t that bad isn’t the same as saying something isn’t there. It’s there, it just isn’t that bad!
 
Forget the slow mo observations, we cant referee through hindsight. In real time I'm.giving a foul and explaining that the fouled player got the ball before being contact from the other player and then moving away quickly to get the game going again.

Nothing more. You could argue that both players were acting recklessly if you wanted but why would you? Both players were being reckless if you want to go down that road but when 2 players are both guilty of the same thing then pick the worst one, give a foul and get the game moving again (unless it's Violent conduct etc).
 
Ben448844 said:
Forget the slow mo observations, we cant referee through hindsight. In real time I'm.giving a foul and explaining that the fouled player got the ball before being contact from the other player and then moving away quickly to get the game going again.

Nothing more. You could argue that both players were acting recklessly if you wanted but why would you? Both players were being reckless if you want to go down that road but when 2 players are both guilty of the same thing then pick the worst one, give a foul and get the game moving again (unless it's Violent conduct etc).
Click to expand...

There is no benefit of hindsight in the clip as it stops immediately after the incident. There is the benefit of two angles of view, slow mo, unlimited replays of the incident and plenty of time to decide. In real time as a referee you would have a different angle of view and distance, higher eye quality resolution, sound, etc. Not to mention you would have more of a context, temperature of the game etc.

Saying in real time you would X and Y is only speculation. The question is, what is the decision based on what you see in the clip, with all the benefits that comes with the clip but without the benefit of being there. Only after a decision based on the clip, it's fair to say 'but in real time I would probably go X and Y'.
 
If we are touching 5 pages on this nothing freekick, I hope the internet extends its capacity for the next big decision free kick that is posted

As ever, on your game, go with what you see at the time.
If we are soley referring to the clip, factually, it is a foul.
Interpretation wise, tempo of game, your tolerance etc, you can go, nothing, warning, or yc. Red card would be incorrect although lets not pretend somewhere in planet referee someone will talk it into one.
 
one said:
There is no benefit of hindsight in the clip as it stops immediately after the incident. There is the benefit of two angles of view, slow mo, unlimited replays of the incident and plenty of time to decide. In real time as a referee you would have a different angle of view and distance, higher eye quality resolution, sound, etc. Not to mention you would have more of a context, temperature of the game etc.

Saying in real time you would X and Y is only speculation. The question is, what is the decision based on what you see in the clip, with all the benefits that comes with the clip but without the benefit of being there. Only after a decision based on the clip, it's fair to say 'but in real time I would probably go X and Y'.
Click to expand...

Equally, giving any opinion on what you'd do based on a clip seen on a forum is speculation.

We can however, delve into how we've dealt with similar incidents in our own matches and summise how we'd act when issued with a clip of a similar incident.

That's my view and how I've gone about the issue but others can do so how they see fit. That is a 'forum'

Let's not worry about semantics
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top