A&H

Sunderland v Norwich

The Referee Store
Surprised not more been made of this.
I was even more surprised at no sanction. I think
2 reds is correct outcome for me but a hard sell at any level.
The kiss is (i assume by the reaction) unwanted, and unacceptable, physical contact and can be easily classified as abusive. If you kissed someone in the street without their consent I expect you could be facing charges somewhere close to sexual harassment, although this is clearly not sexually motivated, but more antagonistic.
The 2nd can easily be classified as Violent Conduct.
 
The correct outcome would be OFFINABUS and AAA
Don't like the term 'selling' personally. Don't think there's anything to sell here anyway. A fairly tame reaction to totally unacceptable behaviour
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
The correct outcome would be OFFINABUS and AAA
Don't like the term 'selling' personally. Don't think there's anything to sell here anyway. A fairly tame reaction to totally unacceptable behaviour
Click to expand...
You have to sell everything these days. Even the most egregious offences.

I dont see how grabbing your opponent around the throat can be described as anything other than brutality. I think it's a tough sell, because it can be downplayed, and at the lower end of the threshold for brutality. The force wasn't really a lot, he didn't really choke him, he didn't hold him around the throat for very long and other reasons I'm sure... But ultimately, taking your opponent by the throat is not an attitude a la AAA it's an action, and to me it's a violent action.

I think in these situations, exceptional cases exempted, you ideally want 2 of the same sanctions for match control purposes.

I think you'd have a hard time explaining why you sent off for a, what many will say was harmless - it is not, kiss and not for a very clear grabbing of the throat.

If you have this in your game with an observer, you have choices, each need selling in a variety of guises.

1 is, imo, correct outcome of 2 reds. Observer mark in bag, probably 2 disgruntled club marks.

1 is one yellow, one red. Maybe a happy observer. maybe it's me and I disagree. One peed off club and one mildly happier.

Yellow a piece, the worst option, maybe mildly happier clubs, maybe not happy as VC or Offinabus ignored against them. Difficult to explain to an observer what you saw and then marry up the sanction.

Final option , risk clubs, but at our level, less likely camera picks up what actually happened, downplay it totally and again get observer support.

All obviously carry the risk that observer/clubs disagree whatever action you take so you've always got to sell, even when you're right.
 
JamesL said:
You have to sell everything these days. Even the most egregious offences.

I dont see how grabbing your opponent around the throat can be described as anything other than brutality. I think it's a tough sell, because it can be downplayed, and at the lower end of the threshold for brutality. The force wasn't really a lot, he didn't really choke him, he didn't hold him around the throat for very long and other reasons I'm sure... But ultimately, taking your opponent by the throat is not an attitude a la AAA it's an action, and to me it's a violent action.

I think in these situations, exceptional cases exempted, you ideally want 2 of the same sanctions for match control purposes.

I think you'd have a hard time explaining why you sent off for a, what many will say was harmless - it is not, kiss and not for a very clear grabbing of the throat.

If you have this in your game with an observer, you have choices, each need selling in a variety of guises.

1 is, imo, correct outcome of 2 reds. Observer mark in bag, probably 2 disgruntled club marks.

1 is one yellow, one red. Maybe a happy observer. maybe it's me and I disagree. One peed off club and one mildly happier.

Yellow a piece, the worst option, maybe mildly happier clubs, maybe not happy as VC or Offinabus ignored against them. Difficult to explain to an observer what you saw and then marry up the sanction.

Final option , risk clubs, but at our level, less likely camera picks up what actually happened, downplay it totally and again get observer support.

All obviously carry the risk that observer/clubs disagree whatever action you take so you've always got to sell, even when you're right.
Click to expand...
We have our minds polluted by Observers and Promotion at times. The reaction was tame, nowehere near as bad as Casimaro (or whatever his name is) recently. Anyway, I've got morals at the end of the day and there's a point at which I'd sack the Oberver off and do what's morally right within the framework of the LOTG

I just think the first offence is the same as spitting, but the soft hands on is nothing really. Hardly 'choking' or whatever
Thought he showed restraint personally
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
We have our minds polluted by Observers and Promotion at times. The reaction was tame, nowehere near as bad as Casimaro (or whatever his name is) recently. Anyway, I've got morals at the end of the day and there's a point at which I'd sack the Oberver off and do what's morally right within the framework of the LOTG

I just think the first offence is the same as spitting, but the soft hands on is nothing really. Hardly 'choking' or whatever
Thought he showed restraint personally
Click to expand...
The observer stuff was more in reply to the selling side of things where different outcomes from the same action can be "sold", and how they might be perceived by the main stakeholders in our games.
I agree, there was some restraint, but only after he had, just, breached the threshold of violence.
I think once the contact is made, there is violent intent and then the conduct becomes violent, even if for the briefest of moments.
We'll not agree on this I am sure, but as general rule, anything neck and above is generally a red card. We don't have to worry about force (unless negligible, which is not the case here imo) only that the players action was brutality (an act that is deliberately violent) which throat grabbing, however you put it, definitely falls into that bracket for me.
 
Big Cat said:
We have our minds polluted by Observers and Promotion at times. The reaction was tame, nowehere near as bad as Casimaro (or whatever his name is) recently. Anyway, I've got morals at the end of the day and there's a point at which I'd sack the Oberver off and do what's morally right within the framework of the LOTG

I just think the first offence is the same as spitting, but the soft hands on is nothing really. Hardly 'choking' or whatever
Thought he showed restraint personally
Click to expand...
There shouldn't be any conflict here. Your observer should be telling you to apply the LOTG, your refereeing morals should be telling you to apply the LOTG.

Some decisions are truly subjective, but once you take them out, if you see a conflict then one of 3 things is happening:
1. You're choosing to prioritise your opinion of how football "should" be over the LOTG. Aka Last Weeks Ref.
2. Something has become an accepted norm that the LOTG hasn't caught up to yet (either by complying or explicitly saying the norm should be stopped).
3. You have a bad observer.

Only one of those is the observer's fault. And I think if an individual ref is assuming every time their observer disagrees it's a case of them being wrong (and I'm guilty of this too!), that's statistically unlikely when there are 3 possible reasons for a disagreement.

In this specific case, I'm 100% with James and I don't think there is wiggle room in the law in this case really. And if you think that you wouldn't be giving red for this but would feel pressured to by the promotion scheme, I'd suggest we're looking at issue 1 on the above list rather than 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top