The Ref Stop

Threats of physical violence to opponents.

Just to add a little more food for thought. The restart for VC if ball in play is expected to be DFK ( don't think it's specific in law). The required restart for verbal offences ( which the OP is) is IFK.

OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
I do think the fact we can’t make VC stick for a violent threat is a bit of a depressing example of the failures of our disciplinary system.

A lot of the threats are legitimate and chilling, more than warrant a longer ban.
Click to expand...
If someone threatens to tackle an opponent with EF in a challenge for the ball, will you send them off for SFP? And start with DFK?

We have a framework to work with and we have to apply it as is. And until that framework changes, OP can only be a verbal offence.
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
Just to add a little more food for thought. The restart for VC if ball in play is expected to be DFK ( don't think it's specific in law). The required restart for verbal offences ( which the OP is) is IFK.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. Restart for a verbal offence would have to be indirect free kick.
one said:
If someone threatens to tackle an opponent with EF in a challenge for the ball, will you send them off for SFP? And start with DFK?
Click to expand...
No, because Serious foul play requires a tackle or challenge.
one said:
We have a framework to work with and we have to apply it as is. And until that framework changes, OP can only be a verbal offence.
Click to expand...
You can act violently in a verbal way, which is why I chucked that spanner in there.
I think the threat of physical violence can be considered as violent. I'm not talking about "I'm going to commit a nasty tackle" I'm talking about OP where a player makes another player reasonably believe and fear that physical violence is going to occur.

On reflection the easier outcome and sell is offinabus.

As I said I was being smart when I posted it's VC and I'm not stepping too far away from that.

Ultimately the offence is Violent Conduct. And the definition is uses brutality.

Conduct = the way someone behaves.
Brutality = an act that is deliberately violent

Threaten is a verb, therefore, to me it is considered an act/action.

So I don't think it's a big a leap to arrive at VC when someone is committing an act of what is essentially non-physical brutality.
 
Last edited:
Incidents like this can be so hard to judge or manage. Ignore it and you’ve potentially missed the chance to stop a further escalation. Get involved and you’re seen as a busy body who is stopping ‘banter’.

For me, they’re pretty much always a YHTBT
 
Runner Ref said:
Incidents like this can be so hard to judge or manage. Ignore it and you’ve potentially missed the chance to stop a further escalation. Get involved and you’re seen as a busy body who is stopping ‘banter’.

For me, they’re pretty much always a YHTBT
Click to expand...
We get paid the big bucks to decide the difference between banter and threats. Threatening someone is abusive. No need to try to cram it into VC.
 
Runner Ref said:
Incidents like this can be so hard to judge or manage. Ignore it and you’ve potentially missed the chance to stop a further escalation. Get involved and you’re seen as a busy body who is stopping ‘banter’.

For me, they’re pretty much always a YHTBT
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Give yourself 2 seconds to read the room, then act as appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top