Working on the assumption that this should have been a red card, I thought it would go down as Serious Foul Play but Mark Halsey has indicated Violent Conduct. Your thoughts on this incident and, more generally, any useful links to when something is SFP and when it is VC?
SFP vs Violent Conduct
- Thread starter LOAFer
- Start date
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Sfp involves a challenge for the ball.
vc is when excessive force, brutality is shown, when not challenging for the ball.
so, if you like in simple terms, sfp involves a tackle, vc is events not relating to a tackle.
this clip is vc, if you can imagine swapping the kick, for a punch, its exactly the same offence.
at the point of this act, the ball is not even in screenshot
vc is when excessive force, brutality is shown, when not challenging for the ball.
so, if you like in simple terms, sfp involves a tackle, vc is events not relating to a tackle.
this clip is vc, if you can imagine swapping the kick, for a punch, its exactly the same offence.
at the point of this act, the ball is not even in screenshot
i agree with you though i think both are justifiable (deffo a red imo first off...)
you could say he is challenging for the ball as he's setting himself up for a volley (clearly) but the action is violent and i think the aim is to kick saka rather than the ball so i'd go VC too
one
RefChat Addict
Imagine the red 7 is not there and the shot by yellow 18 would have needed some serious saving. I don't see how this is not considered challenging for the ball. He is going for the ball for me and completely fails to see the defender (he should have though). If this was red, it SFP for me.
However if you are of the opinion that he knows the defender is there and goes for the kick anyway, I am ok with you going VC.
However if you are of the opinion that he knows the defender is there and goes for the kick anyway, I am ok with you going VC.
i think you can justify the player swinging for the ball with that force, he's trying to bang one in the top corner from 20 yards afterall
however i am of the opinion that he sees saka and knows he's going to smash him and then continues to do so
one
RefChat Addict
Thats not how you you define challenge for the ball though. If the defender was not there would be have connected with the ball? The answer is a he's for me. This is the ball at its lowest point.
The only thing that would change this to VC for me is if I think he is intending to kick the defender (not the ball).
Last edited:
This is VC for me. Yes the ball is within playing distance. But he isn't looking at iy, nor is he challenging for it.
There 's no excusing it, he has quite obviously done the player here. A ball dropping like that you've got your eyes on as you' re gearing up to strike it. He knows that balls going nowhere near his foot.
There 's no excusing it, he has quite obviously done the player here. A ball dropping like that you've got your eyes on as you' re gearing up to strike it. He knows that balls going nowhere near his foot.
one
RefChat Addict
Yes I do now that I have seen multiple replays with better quality and more angles. And happy to disagree but I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post. Won't be a referee forum without it
If it helps, this is just a moment before as the ball is coming to them. The is very little chance he can see Saka is coming from behind him. It just works in favour of no intent.
It's a fairly nothing distinction either way, but I'm with @one and would go SFP for this. The motion is to kick the ball - it's hard to accept he hasn't seen the player, but that doesn't change the definition.
If a player deliberately tries to "go through" the ball to leave one on an opponent, that's still SFP and this is the same principal for me. Even if he's deliberately used the rough presence of the ball as an excuse to kick an opponent, it's still a sporting action - just an extremely unsafe and forceful one.
If a player deliberately tries to "go through" the ball to leave one on an opponent, that's still SFP and this is the same principal for me. Even if he's deliberately used the rough presence of the ball as an excuse to kick an opponent, it's still a sporting action - just an extremely unsafe and forceful one.
one
RefChat Addict
The very first angle at normal speed might change your mind. Fair enough if it doesn't.
something just to get discussion. The referees whistle at this point had already gone for a hand ball.
So can it actually legally be deemed as challenging for the ball?
aware of the timing and such of the whistle going and the kick.
Also definitely red for me
So can it actually legally be deemed as challenging for the ball?
aware of the timing and such of the whistle going and the kick.
Also definitely red for me
People don't freeze in place when the whistle goes - as long as he's already committed to the kick, I don't think the precise timing of the whistle changes the balance in the VC vs SFP argument.
His point is pretty valid. You can't challenge for a ball which is not in play.
If the referee has already blown, and therefore the ball is out of play, I think this would then have to fall into VC.
Can accept arguments with ball on play, and in reality it changes nothing
i can certainly see where you're coming from however if you think this is sfp without the whistle i'd be sticking with that (assuming i thought the player didnt have time to pull out)
From the LOTG glossary: Challenge - An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball
That's the entire definition. And nothing in there about the ball having to be in play. The same applies to the glossary definition of Serious Foul Play. So I'm disagreeing the the initial premise of your statement - even if the whistle has gone a split second before the kick, that doesn't stop it being a challenge for the ball. Which therefore means SFP is still on the table as an option.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Nah. SFP.
I think he's assuming/hoping the defender is gonna miss it and he is looking right into where the ball "should" land for his volley attempt.
Yes but you always here that the best volleys are where the eyes remain fixed on the ball...Nah. SFP.
I think he's assuming/hoping the defender is gonna miss it and he is looking right into where the ball "should" land for his volley attempt.
You don't stare at space waiting for the ball to drop your eyes follow the ball which is why I see a deliberateness to this.
To illustrate my point, watch the volleys in this video, the players are all exclusively eyes fixed on the ball as they line up their volley.