A&H

vindication for VC

Kent Ref

RefChat Addict
I reffed a game yesterday under 16s.

Blue defender clears the ball from his own PA. A second or 2 later white attacker kicks the defender (not hard) but it was pointless (they were losing 6-0).

I felt no option but to show the red for VC - kicking. No comment from blue player but he looked surprised.

Neither manager said they saw it and wanted an explanation. I gave it and nothing else was said.

The home team sent me the video clip today and it's clear as day what happened.

It's nice to have video to back up what you thought you saw.
 
The Referee Store
You have to decide if it was petulant in which case a caution is fine, or whether it used excessive force or brutality as law requires one of those to be present for VC. As you've described the action it sounds more petulant than violent, but you were the referee present so it is your decision.
 
You have to decide if it was petulant in which case a caution is fine, or whether it used excessive force or brutality as law requires one of those to be present for VC. As you've described the action it sounds more petulant than violent, but you were the referee present so it is your decision.
I think with kicking an opponent when not challenging for the ball, my thought would be either 'that would have hurt them' (caused pain) or 'that wouldn't have hurt them' and base the sanction on that.
 
Hmm, I sent 2 off a few weeks ago for VC. 1st kicked keeper as he walked away. 2nd kicked and tussles with lino. 1st guy complained but 2nd didn't.
 
You have to decide if it was petulant in which case a caution is fine, or whether it used excessive force or brutality as law requires one of those to be present for VC. As you've described the action it sounds more petulant than violent, but you were the referee present so it is your decision.
Rusty

Sunday I had this very thing - U14s, attacker carelessly fouled on edge of box and I award DFK and immediately (almost as I'm blowing the whistle) petulantly kicks out/trips offending player. Considered VC but a) it really wasn't violent or aggressive and b) thought a RC would be an impossible sell so cautioned and wrote down UB/AA. Catching up on weekend admin and debating what code to officially put it down as - AA, DP or UB? Inclined to go UB but does it really matter?
 
I reffed a game yesterday under 16s.

Blue defender clears the ball from his own PA. A second or 2 later white attacker kicks the defender (not hard) but it was pointless (they were losing 6-0).

I felt no option but to show the red for VC - kicking. No comment from blue player but he looked surprised.
The reason he made no comment was because he knew he'd gotten what he deserved!!

I'm gonna go against the general consensus of opinion here (it seems) and applaud you doing the correct thing.

It doesn't matter what the Law says when this happens. The game expects a red card. Kicking another player when it's deliberate and is not a challenge for the ball has absolutely no place in the game.

If you show a caution for that offence to one player, what are you going to do when the next player does exactly the same thing? And the next?

In my (adult age) match, if I pull out a yellow for a player deliberately kicking out at another player, I'm likely going to be pulling out a red for the next challenge those two players are involved in and my match control goes to 5hit!!

Obviously just my own opinion/experience but red (rather than yellow) for this offence is always the better call ....
 
Rusty

Sunday I had this very thing - U14s, attacker carelessly fouled on edge of box and I award DFK and immediately (almost as I'm blowing the whistle) petulantly kicks out/trips offending player. Considered VC but a) it really wasn't violent or aggressive and b) thought a RC would be an impossible sell so cautioned and wrote down UB/AA. Catching up on weekend admin and debating what code to officially put it down as - AA, DP or UB? Inclined to go UB but does it really matter?
It doesn't really matter what you report as long as the main C code is correct. I'm not even convinced those codes are even analysed any more.
 
Back
Top