A&H

SFP or VC?

Fifa

Fifa

New Member
Can a player be sent off for Serious Foul Play if the ball is out of play?

This scenario happened as I was the AR in a mens "semi-pro" league and the referee made the right call, but there was some debate as to what to officially write on the match report.

Scenario - A Blue player runs down the right side of the field towards the goal line. as he approaches the goal line, he attempts to cross the ball into the penalty area. He strikes the ball, and it curves just over the goal line (in the air) and then back in again toward the penalty spot. The AR raises his flag to signal that the ball has gone out of play for a goal kick. Just as the flag is being raised, a Red player comes sliding in with a late tackle, studs up, and makes contact just above the knee of the Blue player. There is no question that the Red player must be Sent Off and shown the red card however, is he sent off for SFP (serious foul play) or VC (violent conduct)?

Conclusion - The referee decided to mark it as VC since he said that you can not be guilty of SFP if the ball is out of play (the ball had crossed the goal line before the late tackle occured).

Any thoughts?
 
The Referee Store
We're talking split second timing here. It's serious foul play. By the time that the referee and the players are aware that the flag is up the challenge will have been made. Suddenly all attention is focussed on this. The fact that the ball went out for a goal kick will be forgotten in the immediate aftermath. If the AR is neutral I would fully expect that the raised flag would then be waved to indicate the foul rather than the goal kick.
 
Split second is right!
I was the AR and my flag went up for the goal kick...and then stayed up for the foul as I indicated to the referee that I thought it was indeed a SO offence. However, he asked if the ball went out of play first. I answered truthfully and we restarted with a goal kick. We discussed it in the change room after the game and it was decided that since the ball was out of play, SFP was not applicable and it must therefore, be reported as VC.

My only issue is that is seems unfair to site someone for VC only because of split second timing, and causing a player to be suspended for 3 games instead of 2 (In Ontario, VC is a 3 game suspension, where SFP is 2 games). As referee's we are mandated to be neutral, unbiased, and above all else we are to be FAIR!
 
Well ultimately he is the boss. Lots of people talk about "no surprises" and will probably argue -with merit- that the award of the goal kick is a surprise.

I personally think that the easiest way to deal with this would be to give a direct FK. I knw the ball has crossed the line but the defender has made a sliding challenge. He's committed to the challenge before the ball is out no?
 
Again...we're talking about split second timing. lol
The player started to slide before the ball went out, however the simple act of sliding itself is not an offence. The slide became SFP (or VC depending on how you look at it) at the moment he made contact with the opponent. At THAT point the ball had already crossed the line for a goal kick.

I guess in theory, and as a matter of LAW it must be reported as VC because the ball was not in play when the offence occured however, it still seems unfair to me that the player will get a 3 game suspension instead of 2 because of split second timing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top