The Ref Stop

Sanction and restart for this?

The Gump

The Gump

Active Member
Level 7 Referee
Interesting one from Twitter and just wondered what would be the correct sanction and restart for this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712009853055418840

I'd go with caution & IDFK for dangerous play (interestingly I can't see in the LOTG where it says you must caution or RC dangerous play, or have I missed it?) then YC Sinbin for kicking the ball away, but would that be wrong?

Seen a few similar changes at youth level where the offender is miles away from the ball or player, hence the question.
 
The Ref Stop
The Gump said:
Interesting one from Twitter and just wondered what would be the correct sanction and restart for this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712009853055418840

I'd go with caution & IDFK for dangerous play (interestingly I can't see in the LOTG where it says you must caution or RC dangerous play, or have I missed it?) then YC Sinbin for kicking the ball away, but would that be wrong?

Seen a few similar changes at youth level where the offender is miles away from the ball or player, hence the question.
Click to expand...
Jumping at an opponent (dfk) is an option, or dangerous play (ifk).
If the referee is going to caution, there is no delay to the restart, so no second offence, but if not cautioning for the challenge the delaying of the restart warrants a caution (or could be treated as dissent, so a Sin Bin)
Playing in a dangerous manner is not a mandatory caution.
 
It's playing in a dangerous manner, at minimum.
For me, it's a challenge for the ball (challenge = 2 players competing for the ball) and I would class it as reckless so it's a YC and direct free kick for me. So the more serious offence is punished.
2nd offence is Dissent, so it's either sin bin or 2nd yellow if no sin bin and off for 10 mins or sent off.
 
I'd be sticking with PIADM, so caution and IFK. I get the case for reckless, but I think that's a much more complex explanation and it's far enough away from the opponent that there was no real risk once they pulled out.

Good spot from James on the post-decision dissent as well, easy sin bin.
 
GraemeS said:
I'd be sticking with PIADM, so caution and IFK. I get the case for reckless, but I think that's a much more complex explanation and it's far enough away from the opponent that there was no real risk once they pulled out.

Good spot from James on the post-decision dissent as well, easy sin bin.
Click to expand...

If you are only going PIADM, what's the caution for?

Ps I am just being tricky.
 
Second yellow for delaying the restart would be a more serious offence, in terms of sanction, than a sin bin in this case?
 
I would give a direct free kick and no misconduct for this. The player clearly lunges into the challenge, which makes it a foul; but there is no point of contact at all so calling it reckless is a stretch.
 
GraemeS said:
I'm reporting it on Wholegame under "Dangerous Play", that bit is easy! ;)
Click to expand...
What if you weren't in England? And I think that's where it gets muddy.

I don't think the laws expect caution for PIADM but we've sort of been conditioned by FA Codes to caution for it. If we didn't have that code (i kind of thought that using that code would be your answer) how would we justify a caution for PIADM? I dunno it just doesn't feel right to me..

RyantheRef said:
I would give a direct free kick and no misconduct for this. The player clearly lunges into the challenge, which makes it a foul; but there is no point of contact at all so calling it reckless is a stretch.
Click to expand...
Not sure why point of contact is relevant to reckless or not. A consideration, for sure, but certainly not a condition.

This challenge, if there was any contact at all would be an easy red. I don't see how we can have the most severe sanction or the least severe and nothing in between.

Is this a player who is (only) showing a lack of attention or precaution, or are they acting with disregard to the danger or consequences to their opponent?

For me it's the latter, the fact there is no contact is not as a result of the offender, but the evasive action of the other player.
bester said:
Second yellow for delaying the restart would be a more serious offence, in terms of sanction, than a sin bin in this case?
Click to expand...
Interesting point... With sin bin I've always kind of gone with its one or the other and I hadn't considered that the 2 offences could be done simultaneously.
 
I'm genuinely curious as to what makes this not a RC offence?

1697114258502.png


At this point the other player is still looking like they are going to challenge for the ball. Is it proximity alone that prevents it from being excessive force / out of control?
 
JamesL said:
For me it's the latter, the fact there is no contact is not as a result of the offender, but the evasive action of the other player.
Click to expand...

That is not what I'm seeing in the video. I'm seeing a lunge way out ahead of the attacker. Unless the attacker massively accelerates (which he does not have a body position to do), there will be no contact or else the contact will be thigh to foot. As it is, the incident before us yields no contact and I don't think rises to reckless.
 
RyantheRef said:
That is not what I'm seeing in the video. I'm seeing a lunge way out ahead of the attacker. Unless the attacker massively accelerates (which he does not have a body position to do), there will be no contact or else the contact will be thigh to foot. As it is, the incident before us yields no contact and I don't think rises to reckless.
Click to expand...
If you look at the picture above @DazN has posted, and yes micro analysing, that straight leg is a hard brake. No one runs like that. That hard brake is evasive action, to save his broken leg/s.
 
You all need to have a look at yourselves. It's Serious Foul Play
Completely ridiculous lunge from whatever direction and I'm not finding out what the consequences are in my game of getting cute with the Laws
 
JamesL said:
If you look at the picture above @DazN has posted, and yes micro analysing, that straight leg is a hard brake. No one runs like that. That hard brake is evasive action, to save his broken leg/s.
Click to expand...

I can see that. From watching the video, I don't think that the player in green is ever getting close enough to that tackle (based on the speed and distance he is covering) to be hit by anything but thigh/hip of the lunging player. Hence I don't believe that there is ever going to actually be a studs to ankle scenario here which would give us a sending off offence. If the contact came in the way that I believe it could have, then this would be a reckless challenge; since the contact didn't come, I believe this is a careless challenge- though it is a 3 on the severity scale and I could support a caution if the circumstances were right (either the match temperature was rising and it needed to be taken down, or the temperature was so low that this challenge was wildly out of place).
 
Caution, direct freekick for me. I think had the opponent been closer and making a 'challenge' it would be an easy red for SFP...
 
Big Cat said:
You all need to have a look at yourselves. It's Serious Foul Play
Completely ridiculous lunge from whatever direction and I'm not finding out what the consequences are in my game of getting cute with the Laws
Click to expand...
If a player did that in the middle of nowhere with no opponent nearby as a weird choice to control a loose bouncing ball, would you send them off for it?

I presume not - so we have to accept that proximity to another player is a factor in how dangerous that action actually is. I'm not going to get into trying to guess at the intent, but if he doesn't actually risk injuring anyone, SFP would be excessive for me.
 
I don't believe this is even a talking point. When I saw it on a WhatsApp Group, nobody responded. I assumed it was obvious
Not having the aftermath of that nonsense, if indeed it wasn't just staged for the camera. It's that stupid
 
Last edited:
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Jumping at an opponent (dfk) is an option, or dangerous play (ifk).
If the referee is going to caution, there is no delay to the restart, so no second offence, but if not cautioning for the challenge the delaying of the restart warrants a caution (or could be treated as dissent, so a Sin Bin)
Playing in a dangerous manner is not a mandatory caution.
Click to expand...
Jumping at an opponent I don't think is an option here Chas.

For me, that element of Law 12 is reserved for "headed" challenges when the ball is in the air. "Jumping" in this manner ie. letting gravity take over is a consideration for either dangerous, reckless or even SFP.

The correct sanction for the kicking away of the ball here is a dissent caution (Sin Bin) since it's clear that's what it is by the way in which the player throws his arms up in the air (presumably in faux disgust at hearing the whistle blown against him) as he does it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top