The Ref Stop

Villa v Middlesborough - red card rescinded

A

alexgr

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Lansbury has had his red card from earlier in the week rescinded by the FA, would be interested to hear thoughts - clip here, red starts from about 1.20 (
).

For me, given the pace and the point of content (seems to be the attacker's knee), I have no problem with a dismissal but could understand a caution too. Personally think it's quite weak of the FA to rescind it though, if they can't see how it endangers the safety of the attacker then I don't know what else does.

Thoughts?
 
The Ref Stop
IMHO they shouldn't be overturning this. I can also understand YC. But this fits LotG RC. The FA should respect the ref's decision in this case.
 
I was just about to post same thing. A lot of talk on fb about it. Personally I think it's a yellow, at full stretch it isn't a dangerous tackle it's a straight forward trip possibly a bit higher then intended but I don't think excessive force it is reckless so a yellow (plus stopping a promising attack.) Not sure it was wise to rescind having said that
 
Its difficult to see on that clip where or how the inpact is made. If its back knee with studs then red but in realtime it looks like a trip. I dont see any safety endangerment.
Personally I think that fits the bracket of disregard for opponents safety so reckless =caution.
What we dont get to see is the referees misconduct report. He might have said I saw.... and actually that isnt supported by the video. All good and well saying FA shluld not rescind but if the report doesnt match the video then its wrongful dismissal.
 
Red card for me, Violent conduct
Thats not an attempt to tackle or play a ball, thats a clear aimed deliberate kick
 
Very similar type of challenge was shown during the 5-4 promotion seminar and they made it very clear the expectation was to show a red card.
 
Clearly no attempt to play the ball just the player. Looks like a kick to me not a trip so red is correct for me and should not have been rescinded......
 
Red all day long. So far away from the ball it's in a different county! There's a difference between 'taking one for the team' and this kind of Violent Conduct. As others have said, only reason for rescinding would be if the report doesn't tally with the video evidence
 
I referenced this call on another thread last week. Good thats its got its own airing...RC for me.....Not sure if your average football fans see it the same way though!!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
I referenced this call on another thread last week. Good thats its got its own airing...RC for me.....Not sure if your average football fans see it the same way though!!
Click to expand...

Your average football fan also seems to think Mané should be let of becuase he "only had eyes for the ball" soooooo
 
It is quite worrying also when so called experts spout their rubbish each week on TV leaving your average player in the parks as confused as to what is actually right too!!! My brother in law is over from the US and he asked me if we wore different studs over here (strange question)? I said that it didn't really matter what material studs were made of, if you wave them around in the vicinity of a face their can only be one outcome!!
 
Sorry but I see orange here probably red full speed live. But never violent conduct, its SFP.
 
WilliamD said:
Sorry but I see orange here probably red full speed live. But never violent conduct, its SFP.
Click to expand...

SFP has to involve a challenge for the ball, I don't think that is the case here as he is not going for the ball at all as it is so far away. At a guess I would say that is why the appeal as successful, in that the referee reported the wrong offence.
 
RustyRef said:
SFP has to involve a challenge for the ball, I don't think that is the case here as he is not going for the ball at all as it is so far away. At a guess I would say that is why the appeal as successful, in that the referee reported the wrong offence.
Click to expand...
Whilst it was I that first raised the point of refs report what I don't understand is why the sanctioning body then cant say but actually it was VC so ban upheld or vice versa. Seems odd to say the least.

I have watched that clip numerous times and I personally dont think it's a foul worthy of a red card.

When considering the definition of reckless vs that of excessive force
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to,
or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned.

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force
and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.

Personally after multiple viewings I think that this is a deliberate, cynical foul to impede the progress of his opponent. I dont think the force used was excessive (I understand the not playing for the ball argument) nor do I think it was a violent act. I dont see the players safety being endangered but I see a player acting with disregard for his opponents safety which lotg prescribes a caution..

I think I could support a red based on the referees version of events. Also having not watched the game the context is also missing i.e. was this a foul in retribution to an earlier event, which could then change the referees, and my own, opinion of what bracket it falls into.

In isolation and with the benefit of tv replay I can see how this card has been rescinded.
 
RustyRef said:
SFP has to involve a challenge for the ball, I don't think that is the case here as he is not going for the ball at all as it is so far away. At a guess I would say that is why the appeal as successful, in that the referee reported the wrong offence.
Click to expand...

The offending player is running towards the ball and dives in at the ball. I just can't see any case for VC. Cynical yes but it's SFP or Reckless.
 
WilliamD said:
The offending player is running towards the ball and dives in at the ball. I just can't see any case for VC. Cynical yes but it's SFP or Reckless.
Click to expand...

But the ball is nowhere near. The player can't win the ball and he knows that full well. Therefore any force becomes excessive force as it goes from being an attempt to play the ball and rather is simply an attempt to kick the opponent.
 
JamesL said:
Whilst it was I that first raised the point of refs report what I don't understand is why the sanctioning body then cant say but actually it was VC so ban upheld or vice versa. Seems odd to say the least.

I have watched that clip numerous times and I personally dont think it's a foul worthy of a red card.

When considering the definition of reckless vs that of excessive force
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to,
or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned.

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force
and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off.

Personally after multiple viewings I think that this is a deliberate, cynical foul to impede the progress of his opponent. I dont think the force used was excessive (I understand the not playing for the ball argument) nor do I think it was a violent act. I dont see the players safety being endangered but I see a player acting with disregard for his opponents safety which lotg prescribes a caution..

I think I could support a red based on the referees version of events. Also having not watched the game the context is also missing i.e. was this a foul in retribution to an earlier event, which could then change the referees, and my own, opinion of what bracket it falls into.

In isolation and with the benefit of tv replay I can see how this card has been rescinded.
Click to expand...

I used the sit on hearings, and if the referee had reported the sending off incorrectly you cannot find the player guilty. If he is appealing a charge of SFP, and the offence is actually VC, you have to find him cleared of the offence if it becomes clear he had committed VC but not SFP.

Its the same if the referee's report uses incorrect terms. For example, if he reports that the player was sent off for SFP for recklessly challenging an opponent that has to be overturned as a reckless challenge is a caution not a red card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top