There isn't a legitimate attempt to play the ball, but that isn't a consideration according to the LOTG.
Udinese - AC Milan
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
There isn't a legitimate attempt to play the ball, but that isn't a consideration according to the LOTG.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I was trying to simplify the diff between doing something which resembles a tackle, and, simply running after someone to kick them
in the clip, there is no challenge for the ball.
am sure folk quote better than me, so "Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball"
running after someone to kick them, is brutality. No challenge for the ball was made here. VC.
I would be happy to concede if it was mentioned in the LOTG that contact where no challenge is made for the ball is VC. Until then, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see this as anything more than a reckless trip.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Ok, another way of thinking, would you be ok with me tripping you up as per the clip??
or would you go, hey, wait a min, why you KICKING me ?
Without wanting to get into a massive debate, I think this defintion is miles off and very misleading. If a player attempts to clear a ball, misses and makes contact with the opponent, surely we'd all still say he kicked him? Intent to get the ball has nothing to do with defining if something is a kick or trip.
bester
RefChat Addict
The below redcard was overrturned by the FA - and is the first development clip on the FA referee HIVE.
2.55
Different opinions about it among referee would be interesting to find out if it was on the observer version @Brian Hamilton @lincs22 with official FA recommendations.
2.55
Different opinions about it among referee would be interesting to find out if it was on the observer version @Brian Hamilton @lincs22 with official FA recommendations.
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
The ball playing a pivotal role, as per another post I contributed
In the clip, the ball has no part to play in the act. So the example you provide does not equate to the clip in question. In the clip, the ball might as well be on the moon, all that happens is one player runs after an opponent before booting him.
Last edited:
This is where we disagree. That's not a standard you can credibly maintain imo. I'd argue force absolutely matters! A tap on the ankle requires a different sanction to booting the back of someone's knee.
Overturned by the FA presumably for the lack of excessive force, regardless of what the ball is doing.
I mean, I'd prefer not to be fouled at ALL in an ideal world when playing. I'd be more frustrated he'd stopped my promising attack rather than the fact that I'd been tripped tbh.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
In the clip and the OP, the lack of excessive force/brutality is what makes it YC IMHO.
I also would like to see the back of fouls like these of course. The OP is such light contact and no malice. The clip has more malice and could be classed as brutality - I'd buy it. But not the OP, sorry Ciley!
I also would like to see the back of fouls like these of course. The OP is such light contact and no malice. The clip has more malice and could be classed as brutality - I'd buy it. But not the OP, sorry Ciley!
one
RefChat Addict
The law is specific for "any force is excessive when not challenging for the ball". It only applies to head and face and only for striking. Even that has a caveat of non negligible . If they wanted this to apply to kicking, tripping, pushing etc and to all parts of the body it would have been easy to include them.
Every case has to be judged individually rather than one size fits all.
The OP was a trip. It was cynical but it used little force to get the trip. For me it's more of an SPA than reckless. I have no issue with considering it reckless but considering it violent is a long long stretch.
Every case has to be judged individually rather than one size fits all.
The OP was a trip. It was cynical but it used little force to get the trip. For me it's more of an SPA than reckless. I have no issue with considering it reckless but considering it violent is a long long stretch.
I can remember both Rooney and Xhaka being sent off for this kind of thing in recent years.
Just to be clear though, I wouldn't criticise a referee for going yellow here, one of those that I'd support either colour card. The concern I have though is that kind of challenge could easily injure the opponent, and I suspect people would have a different view about the sanction if the fouled player was seriously injured by a kick out that had zero attempt to play the ball.
But thats where definitions are important. A player can easily be seriously injured in a fair challenge that requires no sanction at all.
I think the OP is acting with disregard to the danger to his opponent, not endangering safety, nor is it an act of brutality.
I do understand the principle of "any contact is excessive" I just cant buy in to it.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
1 hour 55 mins onwards...sorry i dont know how to shorten the clip....this was a training class clip shown to top flights refs....
We were instructed in no uncertain terms that this was violent conduct and a red card
it is this coaching I base to date similar situations on, as to date I have been coached no differently....
The presence of the ball plays a pivotal role in determining if it is VC, SFP, AA, RP, SPA or simply careless. It has nothing to do with if it's a trip or a kick.
However, in the name of fairness, It's also worth pointing out that nowhere in the laws does it mandate different punishments for trips or kicks, so the distinction is kind of moot when deciding what colour card to show.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
And in the OP there is no presence of the ball thus its VC !!!!!!
As ever, if you (or anybody) wish to show a yellow here, feel free
rest assured I will be showing red
I'm deliberately not getting into that debate. I simply objected to you describing it as a kick "because there's no attempt to play the ball" - that statement's not supported in law and it's not supported by the general English language!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Mate by your posts you object to the air that I breathe, so, given nothing I ever type is going to enlighten your refereeing career the block button would be a good pal of yours, its tiresome that near everything I type has a negative retort from you, so, going forward it be best for a public forum if me and you pretended we did not exist.
VC occurs when not challenging for the ball. In the clip, there is no challenge for the ball, its not a trip, its a kick, so its a red card, if you are really desperate to hear it from a higher power am sure the law makers email address is freely avail and will provide you with the correct outcome to this clip from someone who matters
I have since posted the training class clip which is the closest I can find to OP example, if anybody wishes to contact my national referee association and explain to the head that he is giving his referee's the wrong guidelines then addressing your concerns to him, rather than me, a mere deliverer of the message, would be more constructive..
Last edited:
"Mate". You've written something in a refereeing forum that isn't supported by the LOTG and that you've entirely made up. I'm not dicsussing VC or not (in fact, I've made a point of not sharing my opinion on if I think a red is right or not) - I'm discussing your fabricated definition of "kick". You should count yourself lucky that it's only me that objected to it, because by all rights you should have 5 or 6 people piling on to correct you on this factual error that you have made.
I'd politely suggest you stop making up laws and posting them as fact, as the reputation of this site relies on us not misleading any new referees who stumble onto this.