A&H

Open Age Two footed tackle

Cheshire Ref said:
That's not my opinion, that's HIS opinion.
Click to expand...
No his opinion on the day was he was right he didn't change his mind there and then, he is self doubting his decision and seeking clarity because of his uncertainty? As I said it's a YHTBT scenario, both viewpoints could be argued dependent on the actual challenge which no one but @zarathustra saw. He didn't think it was a red/yellow card at the time and maybe just when he thinks about it he is challenging himself and his decision making process and to see what others would give.
 
The Referee Store
Back to the OP. IDFK, which means no card. Whistle it quickly. Give an additional verbal warning to the player. Sold (IMHO)
 
A Freethinker said:
Would you allow advantage and wait to ball went out of play then a quick word?
Click to expand...
I think in this case, with the ball in midfield and the likelihood of complaints from the attacking team about the challenge I would be blowing ASAP to aid match control, potentially cutting the grass depending on the player's previous and atmosphere... unless there is a blinding advantage. Of course, this is easy to say from the keyboard. But this has got me thinking and I will look out for this situation.
 
santa sangria said:
Back to the OP. IDFK, which means no card. Whistle it quickly. Give an additional verbal warning to the player. Sold (IMHO)
Click to expand...
Forgive me, but why does IDFK mean no card?
Think I could buy an IDFK based on LOTG wording for playing in a dangerous manner but I think that also has to carry a caution too.
 
The danger with this type of tackle, certainly at a junior level, is that if players see an opponent leave the ground with both feet they often get very upset, even when there is no real danger. How often do you hear shouts of "two feet!" when the player is cutting out a pass and there is no chance that he is going to make contact because he's going in the wrong direction?
I've also had occasions where the player has clattered someone with one foot and everyone is surprised when I've sent him off, because they think it's got to be two feet for a red card and that two feet automatically means red.
From the description I think it's impossible to say what action should be taken, but the closer to the player the more likely it is to be a card, of whatever colour. Only Zarathustra was there so he's best placed to know but his first instincts were probably right. We all look at decisions after the event and convince ourselves we were wrong.
My rule of thumb is that if a challenge makes me inhale sharply it's at least yellow, and if I wince it's red. Over the years I've seen some absolutely horrendous challenges, but fortunately none for a few years now (kiss of death, I know!) I did have broken legs in successive games at the end of last season but both were fair challenges where one player got up, the other didn't.
If players are getting upset about the challenge then it may be unwise to play advantage unless it's a really good one. I'd stop play and give the player a lecture, purely for match control. The other player could possibly have one too, depending upon how antsy he got, in order to slow the game down more. Anything more would depend upon the proximity to the other player.
 
Blimey, I hope some of you are calmer when engaging with players on the pitch than you are with each other on here ...:)

The old guidance used to be contact with ball only is a caution, contact with player only or player and ball then it is a red card. You really need to look at each challenge on its own merit - for example, a lunge to stop the ball going in his own goal might be well two footed and off the ground, but if there is no one near you aren't going to penalise for it as all he had endangered is the ball. If there's an opponent in the vicinity though it may well change.

Did it use excessive force and / or did it endanger the opponent, that is all you can look at to determine whether it is red, or if you think it is reckless you go yellow. Purely from the description in the OP, and without having been there to see it, then it sounds to me more like a yellow than a red because if was so far away from the opponent it didn't endanger him.
 
Thanks all, its good to get other opinions on stuff like this.

I think that it probably been a caution, will certsinly keep this in mind moving forwards.
 
James Long said:
Forgive me, but why does IDFK mean no card?
Think I could buy an IDFK based on LOTG wording for playing in a dangerous manner but I think that also has to carry a caution too.
Click to expand...
I looked up the latest LOTG IDFK and caution section as I posted ( ;) )and my reading of it is that there is no allowance for playing in a dangerous manner+IDFK+caution.

The laws state specifically you can give a caution if a player: "commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence". There is no allowance for a reckless IDFK offence.

My understanding is if you want to give the caution then you need to decide on e.g. DFK+caution+e.g. attempts to kick an opponent - in a reckless manner.

Obviously I am ready to be corrected but it seems quite clear in the book on this...
 
santa sangria said:
I looked up the latest LOTG IDFK and caution section as I posted ( ;) )and my reading of it is that there is no allowance for playing in a dangerous manner+IDFK+caution.

The laws state specifically you can give a caution if a player: "commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence". There is no allowance for a reckless IDFK offence.

My understanding is if you want to give the caution then you need to decide on e.g. DFK+caution+e.g. attempts to kick an opponent - in a reckless manner.

Obviously I am ready to be corrected but it seems quite clear in the book on this...
Click to expand...

Hmmm I can accept that interpretation. Maybe I have assumed.the caution code DP (Dangerous Play) as relevant to playing in a dangerous manner which is an IDFK offence.

Your post was, as written, quite general to IDFK though and there are instances where a caution can be given for IDFK offence
 
James Long said:
Hmmm I can accept that interpretation. Maybe I have assumed.the caution code DP (Dangerous Play) as relevant to playing in a dangerous manner which is an IDFK offence.

Your post was, as written, quite general to IDFK though and there are instances where a caution can be given for IDFK offence
Click to expand...
Just for fun while City warm up:

"A player is cautioned if guilty of:
• delaying the restart of play
• dissent by word or action
• entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission
• failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game (no specific number or pattern of infringements constitutes “persistent”)
• unsporting behaviour
...
Cautions for unsporting behaviour:
• attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
• changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without the referee’s permission
• commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
• commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
• handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
• makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
• plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being given permission to leave
• shows a lack of respect for the game
• uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
• verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart"

In the DFK section of course:
- kicks or attempts to kick... considered careless, reckless or with excessive force

In the IDFK section:
"Playing in a dangerous manner

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
---
Ooh spot the typo. So, there is no careless/reckless consideration in the laws connected to playing in a dangerous manner. And the caution laws specifically state reckless-DFK.

Back to the OP. I think this decision can be DFK and RC for attempts to kick with excessive force; or DFK and YC for reckless attempt to kick; or IDFK for PiaDM...

Is there a way to give an IDFK and YC by the laws here?
 
So....if the player didn't have to take any avoiding action for this challenge.....it was pure luck that the offending player missed player and ball? Which in turn implies that the offending player was not in control of the challenge......which means that he actually did endanger the safety of his opponent.......

The next steps largely depend on how far away he was from connecting.....if 3 feet or more then possibly a stern talking to is in order....closer than that, especially if the challenge provoked a reaction from his opponents, I'd be thinking caution at the very least...if inches away, I'd be tempted into red card territory......
The only thing that is certain is that doing nothing is really not an option......very risky letting those sort of challenges go unchecked....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top