A&H

West Ham vs Chelsea

Try on the following scenario:

Player slides in and cleanly wins a ball from his opponent. However, after winning the ball, which has gone to a teammate, he continues sliding and studs another opponent in the knee at force.

Are we really saying that SFP is not open? His slide and the follow through are part and parcel of the challenge. Saying otherwise is highly artificial, in my view.

In the present instance, the player's follow through is part and parcel of his playing the ball. He played the ball in circumstances where the ball was contested and, so, he was challenging for the ball.

We are getting wound in knots here all because we don't like a particular decision. It would be much easier to come clean and say 'I don't think he used excessive force or endangered the safety of his opponent', but that is not such a clear cut argument and so some are trying this elaborate circuit around the laws to say that it can't be SFP, and so therefore you have to be satisfied of the elements of VC before sending off. What pish.
 
The Referee Store
Redster said:
Try on the following scenario:

Player slides in and cleanly wins a ball from his opponent. However, after winning the ball, which has gone to a teammate, he continues sliding and studs another opponent in the knee at force.

Are we really saying that SFP is not open? His slide and the follow through are part and parcel of the challenge. Saying otherwise is highly artificial, in my view.

In the present instance, the player's follow through is part and parcel of his playing the ball. He played the ball in circumstances where the ball was contested.
Click to expand...
Well you said it, he has tackled or challenging for the ball so of course SFP is on the table.
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent. Doesn't say which opponent does it...
 
JamesL said:
Well you said it, he has tackled or challenging for the ball so of course SFP is on the table.
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent. Doesn't say which opponent does it...
Click to expand...
That would be the sensible view...
 
JamesL said:
I was answering your first made up scenario that's not really much like the OP
Click to expand...
Well, it wouldn't be a useful analogy if it was simply a copy of the OP, would it?

I guess it's just a question of whether you think that kick the ball, in circumstances where it is contested, fits the glossary definition of challenging. It does, in my view. You may see it differently. I just cannot fathom how.
 
Redster said:
Well, it wouldn't be a useful analogy if it was simply a copy of the OP, would it?

I guess it's just a question of whether you think that kick the ball, in circumstances where it is contested, fits the glossary definition of challenging. It does, in my view. You may see it differently. I just cannot fathom how.
Click to expand...
He is in full control of the football. He is the one being challenged, not doing the challenging.
I barely think that should have been a foul, less any colour of card.
What is football if you can't even kick the ball anymore?
 
Let me ask this, what if he had raised his leg higher - like, sack height - and followed through into the goolies?
I'm not saying he would be doing so with the intention of injuring his opponent, simply as a follow through to his kick.

Do you really think the intention of the laws is that, because a player is not the 'one doing the challenging', he is not held to the same standard of those who are? He knows he is on a field where players will be contesting for the ball - it wasn't a freekick. He should a) play with care and attention, b) play with regard for consequences to his opponent, and c) play in a manner which does not endanger the safety of his opponent. The opening paragraphs of Law 12 say as much, although they are - frustratingly- limited to kicks, jumps at, etc.

To say that we must be satisfied of VC before sending off a player in these circumstances is to take advantage of a typical failure of IFAB to spell out what it means.

And again, I disclaim that I am not in the camp that is married to a send off here. I don't think it necessarily gets to SFP on the spectrum of challenges.
 
Redster said:
Let me ask this, what if he had raised his leg higher - like, sack height - and followed through into the goolies?
I'm not saying he would be doing so with the intention of injuring his opponent, simply as a follow through to his kick.

Do you really think the intention of the laws is that, because a player is not the 'one doing the challenging', he is not held to the same standard of those who are? He knows he is on a field where players will be contesting for the ball - it wasn't a freekick. He should a) play with care and attention, b) play with regard for consequences to his opponent, and c) play in a manner which does not endanger the safety of his opponent. The opening paragraphs of Law 12 say as much, although they are - frustratingly- limited to kicks, jumps at, etc.

To say that we must be satisfied of VC before sending off a player in these circumstances is to take advantage of a typical failure of IFAB to spell out what it means.

And again, I disclaim that I am not in the camp that is married to a send off here. I don't think it necessarily gets to SFP on the spectrum of challenges.
Click to expand...
But you are ignoring the fact that the only reason he ends up kicking a player is because they have thrown the self in the way, and slipped and got kicked.
The list of responsibilities you have noted is incumbent on all participants. Chilwell is as much to blame here which is why I see it as incidental..
IFAB clearly want a distinction between tackling/challenging and not doing so.
I think the name. Violent conduct is the red herring, as it portrays a certain imagery in our mind.
A player can be guilty of VC without actually doing anything violent in the everyday understanding of the word. Otherwise it wouldn't need the excessive force bit, brutality would suffice for its English language meaning.
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
FWIW I think the player is fully aware of what he's doing
Click to expand...
Read through all of the comments in the thread and this is the one that stands out as utter tosh! Sorry Old Bean, we're on a different planet on this occasion. It happens :moon:
Unless I've misunderstood and you're saying, 'the player was fully aware he was clearing the ball". Refs invent what players think, all too often, except when they're cheating, in which case that's OK
 
As a Chelsea fan obviously I am naturally biased towards my team. At all levels and in some parts of the media there still seems to be a perception that it's not a foul if you get the ball first.

For me it looks like there was a secondary movement of the foot after contact with Chilwell's calf which may have swayed the decision.
 
Mooseybaby said:
As a Chelsea fan obviously I am naturally biased towards my team. At all levels and in some parts of the media there still seems to be a perception that it's not a foul if you get the ball first.

For me it looks like there was a secondary movement of the foot after contact with Chilwell's calf which may have swayed the decision.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same, something just doesn't look right after he has kicked the ball.
 
Redster said:
Let me ask this, what if he had raised his leg higher - like, sack height - and followed through into the goolies?
I'm not saying he would be doing so with the intention of injuring his opponent, simply as a follow through to his kick.

Do you really think the intention of the laws is that, because a player is not the 'one doing the challenging', he is not held to the same standard of those who are? He knows he is on a field where players will be contesting for the ball - it wasn't a freekick. He should a) play with care and attention, b) play with regard for consequences to his opponent, and c) play in a manner which does not endanger the safety of his opponent. The opening paragraphs of Law 12 say as much, although they are - frustratingly- limited to kicks, jumps at, etc.

To say that we must be satisfied of VC before sending off a player in these circumstances is to take advantage of a typical failure of IFAB to spell out what it means.

And again, I disclaim that I am not in the camp that is married to a send off here. I don't think it necessarily gets to SFP on the spectrum of challenges.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't play the ball because of a risk to an opponent, the opponent nicks the ball and scores. Disallow the goal because a player was nice to an opponent?

I blame Chilwell. Stay out of the way. Seriously, how often does player A put a foot up to block the ball and player B follows through onto the "high" boot of player A. Even though both players' feet are at the same height, it's usually player A who gets penalised. But PIADM includes putting yourself in danger.
 
RustyRef said:
I was thinking the same, something just doesn't look right after he has kicked the ball.
Click to expand...
I think this is an interesting angle, let's just look past they were reviewing for SFP as opposed to VC. But yes, if the on-field officials had initially called the claret shirt for 'extras' then I'd not have an issue with that and VC.
As it happens, i think the replays can be read either way as the foot twisted back at the last moment too.
Unusually, I actually was watching this game on TV live (I switched over after the incident) and I really don't recall any 'needle' or issues between the sides in the lead-up.
All things considered here .... I guess I am in the camp that wishes the original on-field decision was given the most weight in this specific situation.
 
When VAR asks the on field official to review for in this case SFP, can the referee decide its VC instead or vice versa?
 
Wonderful this. You can't really say this is Violent Conduct as we know it but as said, it can't really be SFP. I don't even like it being reviewed at all and am firmly in the camp that this isn't a red.
 
one said:
In true IFAB fashion, 'usually' :). Nonetheless, if there are times it is not VC, and if excessive force is used, what would it be I wonder? :)
Click to expand...
A player who uses excessive force when not challenging for ball is guilty of violent conduct.
Even If you didn't think it was 'violent' (aka brutality) its still violent conduct in law.
You'd think ifab would know that 🙄
 
JamesL said:
A player who uses excessive force when not challenging for ball is guilty of violent conduct.
Even If you didn't think it was 'violent' (aka brutality) its still violent conduct in law.
You'd think ifab would know that 🙄
Click to expand...
Or you'd think IFAB thinks the same way as I do. SFP can be when challenging for the ball or when playing the ball. We all know the are many occasions the writing in law is not what it should be. It's all semantics at the end. UEF, send off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top