Naughty or just a coming together???
Rouge, jaune ou play-on
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
Naughty or just a coming together???
Be very hard to say with any kind of confidence that this was intentional. It looks to me like Pavard's sliding body gets in the path of Rudiga's left leg and then it all just becomes a bit of a tangle. Horrible obviously, but just one of those things in my opinion.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
My first reaction is that the lean back and step was unnatural, so deliberate/red. Of course, easier to make that decision from my armchair.
So I watched it slowed down to half speed (such a helpful feature on youtube). There's sort of 2 steps on the player. The first one, clearly unintentional. IT's the 2nd one, the harder one that causes concern.
Watching it on slow motion, I can see that the right foot, the one on the ground, leaves the ground as part of the running momentum. So that's why he then tries to put the left foot down, even though there's a player beneath. Seeing the right foot being off the ground confirms that he had no control at all over this, so accidental.
If the right foot was on the ground there might be an argument for a red......but probably not one you could make with certainty
But we all know that's the case with a lot of fouls - one that looks intentional is always going to be treated more severely, and IMO that's what the game expects.
So I watched it slowed down to half speed (such a helpful feature on youtube). There's sort of 2 steps on the player. The first one, clearly unintentional. IT's the 2nd one, the harder one that causes concern.
Watching it on slow motion, I can see that the right foot, the one on the ground, leaves the ground as part of the running momentum. So that's why he then tries to put the left foot down, even though there's a player beneath. Seeing the right foot being off the ground confirms that he had no control at all over this, so accidental.
If the right foot was on the ground there might be an argument for a red......but probably not one you could make with certainty
Agreed. The only thing you have here is whether it looks intentional. And you're taking cues off the player to determine that.
But we all know that's the case with a lot of fouls - one that looks intentional is always going to be treated more severely, and IMO that's what the game expects.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Intent or not, and the defender has gone to ground and slid under... and however accidental you think this is...
If you see someone tread on someone’s neck it has to be an offence and sanctioned.
Here I think the ball is in play so DFK and YC is such an easy decision. Taking the whole situation here I don’t need to worry about intent. Foot neck free kick.
If you see someone tread on someone’s neck it has to be an offence and sanctioned.
Here I think the ball is in play so DFK and YC is such an easy decision. Taking the whole situation here I don’t need to worry about intent. Foot neck free kick.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
This could be in the dictionary under reckless for me.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Why does it HAVE to be an offence? accidents happen. The outcome doesn't change that it was accidental. It's a contact sport, sometimes things just happen. It's a mistake to think that something messy/yucky/painful must be a foul. Heck, most broken legs aren't even a foul.
If a defender slides and finds himself underneath the opponent's feet while that opponent is running, how is that opponent able to avoid stepping on him? In what way is the attacker responsible for what happened here? How could the attacker reasonably have avoided this? Reckless means the attacker has acted without due consideration for their opponent's wellbeing. Can you argue that's the case? The outcome - that contact was made between foot and neck - doesn't make it a 'cautionable accident'. No such thing.
This was wholly the defender's fault. The only reason the attacker stepped on the defender was because the defender grabbed his leg - otherwise the attacker would have been able to step over the defender! Watch - the defender's hands are raised and on the attacker's calf before the attacker even lifts that leg off the groung.
The other matter is I'm finding it hard to see how it could be a yellow. This is the sort of thing that's either no foul or a red card, for me. If you consider this to be reckless, then stepping on somebody would have to be using excessive force, especially given it was on his neck
Last edited:
The reason that 'intent' is not in the laws is that it is impossible to judge a person's intentions unless you're a mind reader.
What we can do though is see a 'deliberate' action. In this case, we are judging whether he deliberately stamps on the opponent, not if he was intent on injuring him.
What we can do though is see a 'deliberate' action. In this case, we are judging whether he deliberately stamps on the opponent, not if he was intent on injuring him.
Don't agree at all. If anything Pavard has initiated it as he is the one who has slid in, Rudiga then has his feet taken away from him and has nowhere to go. There's nothing reckless about it for me and rather just a total accident. If the neck wasn't on the floor then I might agree, but in this case he put himself in a position to get trodden on.
If you’re penalising this I can’t see how it can be yellow. I think it has to be red or no foul - It’s either a total accident or it’s not. Pavard put himself in that position - as he would be expected to do - which is where the player was running.
I can’t see what Rudiger could have done to avoid this. It actually looks like Pavard catches his foot with his arm as he slides through, making the ‘stamp’ more likely.
I can’t see what Rudiger could have done to avoid this. It actually looks like Pavard catches his foot with his arm as he slides through, making the ‘stamp’ more likely.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
...I don't know Rudiger or his mind... I think it is impossible to tell if this is accidental, or avoidable, if that second contact to the neck is deliberate or not, how nasty/aggressive it is... I don't know... it is not clear I think if he has deliberately tried to injure the opponent... it's also not clear if this is a freak accident or not...
What can I see for certain here? It's not excessive force. Though I guess you could argue that any foot to neck is excessive. But the force used is not so strong. The defender has initiated contact, yes. The defender has won the ball with a challenge that I think is not a foul. The only other thing I have for certain is that the attacker has put his foot on the opponent's neck.
Given this whole situation, I don't think no foul or red card are options... I think DFK YC is a logical outcome, based on what I am certain about, and I think it would be a smart decision.
However, I can understand corner, no foul, YC, RC... I could also imagine a referee verbally warning either player, depending on how they saw the incident.
Surely alarm bells must ring if you see foot to neck. If you don't sanction that, at any league level, what message are you sending to players?
If you don't sanction that, I think the message is "it's OK to risk treading on an opponent's neck". And that's not good on so many levels.
Very very tough call though. In real time - no idea!
What can I see for certain here? It's not excessive force. Though I guess you could argue that any foot to neck is excessive. But the force used is not so strong. The defender has initiated contact, yes. The defender has won the ball with a challenge that I think is not a foul. The only other thing I have for certain is that the attacker has put his foot on the opponent's neck.
Given this whole situation, I don't think no foul or red card are options... I think DFK YC is a logical outcome, based on what I am certain about, and I think it would be a smart decision.
However, I can understand corner, no foul, YC, RC... I could also imagine a referee verbally warning either player, depending on how they saw the incident.
Surely alarm bells must ring if you see foot to neck. If you don't sanction that, at any league level, what message are you sending to players?
If you don't sanction that, I think the message is "it's OK to risk treading on an opponent's neck". And that's not good on so many levels.
Very very tough call though. In real time - no idea!
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Small point but reckless does not need intent. An accident can be reckless as far as I understand. Does a player have to be conscious of their actions to make it reckless?
"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"
It's vague to give referees a lot of discretion, isn't it?
"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"
It's vague to give referees a lot of discretion, isn't it?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I ask again, in what possible way is the attacker responsible here? By saying its a card, you're saying that not only could the attacker avoid it, but the attacker acted without regard for the opponent's safety. How are you claiming that when he only stepped onto the defender after the defender not only slid through his feet but grabbed his leg and stopped him stepping over him?