Violent Conduct - the question we should be asking ourselves

[CaptainsPlease]

When a player uses force on an opponent that is not a footballing action, the question we should be asking ourselves is:
'Would I send this player off for doing that against myself, or against a spectator?'
If the answer is 'yes' then we should be sending off the player for VC.

Why?

Law 12 'Violent Conduct'

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made. In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

The test for VC is exactly the same regardless of who it is committed against - 'uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality'.

Back to Law 12 to explain 'excessive force'

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

And for 'brutality' we must turn to the glossary

An act which is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent

As referees we are happy to agree that it would virtually never be 'necessary' for a player to use any force against ourselves or spectators and so we are very likely to send off a player who does so.

There is no reason I can see in law to treat non-footballing player-on-player use of force any differently. My view is that referees only apply a higher sending-off threshold for player-on-player VC as part of culture, 'what football expects'.

Is there anything in law that I have missed with this analysis?

 

[JamesL]

A question I would ask, is throwing an object at a person a footballing act?

 

[RustyRef]

Really can't see the point of a new topic to discuss something that is covered in depth on another.