Ref4Me

West Ham vs Chelsea

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
When VAR asks the on field official to review for in this case SFP, can the referee decide its VC instead or vice versa?

Once he’s at the screen, the R can essentially call what he deems most appropriate. Notably, if the VaR recommends review for a possible red, the R can give yellow (or see something else). But the VAR can only recommend review for red.

SFP and VC have been the subject of much confusion. While IFAB refers to challenging for the ball, I think what they are really trying to say is that EF in playing the game is SFP and VC is other violence. While I understand the linguistic argument that some are making, I don’t think it is what is really intended by the language. I think IFAB would say the ref team was right to look at this for whether it is SFP--if it’s a foul, it’s a kicking foul in the course of play, which should be evaluated for SFP under C/R/EF standards. For the particular game, what we call it makes no difference--but some competitions punish VC more severely than SFP in terms of suspensions, so the difference can matter.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Once he’s at the screen, the R can essentially call what he deems most appropriate. Notably, if the VaR recommends review for a possible red, the R can give yellow (or see something else). But the VAR can only recommend review for red.

SFP and VC have been the subject of much confusion. While IFAB refers to challenging for the ball, I think what they are really trying to say is that EF in playing the game is SFP and VC is other violence. While I understand the linguistic argument that some are making, I don’t think it is what is really intended by the language. I think IFAB would say the ref team was right to look at this for whether it is SFP--if it’s a foul, it’s a kicking foul in the course of play, which should be evaluated for SFP under C/R/EF standards. For the particular game, what we call it makes no difference--but some competitions punish VC more severely than SFP in terms of suspensions, so the difference can matter.
I agree with all of this, but I'd also throw in the argument (which I don't necessarily agree with!) that the threshold for what amount of force is non-excessive is generally much lower for an off the ball VA than it is in a football-related incident. We've all seen players sent off for a tap of foreheads off the ball, but it's almost unheard of for a clash of heads that results from a genuine attempt to get the ball to be penalised with cards, regardless of how much force is used.

Although as you say, the in-match result is the same, decide which offence it is likely to be may help you decide what is and isn't excessive force.
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
"Excessive force" has always been a stupid phrase. What is "just enough force" that it's not a foul? They took out "intent" and added "careless / reckless / excessive force" (as if it was OK to trip or strike an opponent so long as you did it carefully), then some bright spark suggested making those the categories for grades of disciplinary action (which gives referees the chance to criticise pundits, commentators and other ordinary mortals who think "reckless" sounds worse than "excessive force"). It's all part of IFAB's rich pattern of convoluted language and occasional fads - e.g. every tackle from behind is a red card, until someone points out that a two-footed challenge from the front or the side is far worse than a sliding tackle from behind. In the end, a book of rules that anyone could read and understand in a day becomes an obstacle course of definitions, interpretations, and fine lines between last week's ref and this week's VAR review.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
which gives referees the chance to criticise pundits, commentators and other ordinary mortals who think "reckless" sounds worse than "excessive force"
Absolutely. Only difference between us and the rest of the Football Community is the retrospective terms we apply to what's we've just seen
And then we arrogantly castigate them even though their foul recognition is much the same as ours
Quality post Bloovee
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
I think (hope) the appeal decision will see clarification that kicking the ball in this scenario is part of "challenging for the ball" and the RC will stand.
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Absolutely. Only difference between us and the rest of the Football Community is the retrospective terms we apply to what's we've just seen
And then we arrogantly castigate them even though their foul recognition is much the same as ours
Quality post Bloovee
On a previous refs' forum, one late lamented poster wouldn't even let us say "foul throw" for an incorrectly taken throw!

Even allowing for ever more definitions to get greater consistency (that's going so well), it's crazy that from under 70 pages thirty years ago the laws now run to over 200 (larger) pages. And still no-one can tell me where it says players can take a corner from "in the corner area" with just an edge of the ball hanging "in" the corner area, and the rest of the ball not in the corner area.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I can but I am sure you would argue about the meaning of the word 'in'. In which case it's not just about corner kick, it about most other laws where in/on is not clear when it's partial. Including handball when the hand is outside area but ball is partially in and partially out.

No one is claiming the law covers everything (not even IFAB). In fact the opposite.
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I can but I am sure you would argue about the meaning of the word 'in'. In which case it's not just about corner kick, it about most other laws where in/on is not clear when it's partial. Including handball when the hand is outside area but ball is partially in and partially out.
I wasn't going to go there. Until the USSF started overthinking stuff, everyone knew it meant the position of the GK's hand. Personally, I think the latest wording is the worst ever.
 
Last edited:

cpw1978_

New Member
So looks like the red has been overturned

I think it had to be, without wishing to sound controversial, there are a lot of people in this thread trying to justify the decision retrospectively. It was obviously a massive mistake. Maybe a good example of how referee's can sometimes just get things spectacularly wrong, and we can call it that. Without looking for little details that seem to try and justify a decision that was dreadful.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
A decision being overturned doesn't necessarily mean it was incorrect. The panel is made up of two ex players or managers and one ex referee, this one was always going to be overturned as no player or manager is going to see it as a red card, as we have seen from media and pundit reaction.

I fully expected this decision and am OK with it, but I still think there was an element of intent. When you kick the ball it isn't natural for your leg to lock straight at the knee like that, but I do accept it is all but impossible to prove there was any intent in it (not that intent is necessarily relevant of course).
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Referees aren't the only ones who can assess a challenge, tackle, foul tackle, serious foul play OR the action of clearing a ball upfield
An absolute certainty to be overturned because the decision was wrong. There, put that in your pipes and smoke it :smoke:
 

RefIADad

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
The fact he is following through after a kick is irrelevant to me. He needs to be aware of his opponent and play accordingly. If that means not sending the long ball, so be it.

I won't get into the specifics about the red card. I'm just glad I'm seeing this type of play called as a foul. Earlier in this season, I called a similar type of play (similar in that A team's player kicked the ball and then kicked B team's player on the follow-through. I called it a foul on A). A's player made a somewhat wild swing at the ball, happened to kick it, and then made contact with B. Had another player similar this a couple of weeks later where I called a penalty kick (on this play, the defender got a little nick of the ball and quite a bit of the player with her kick).
 

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I won't get into the specifics about the red card. I'm just glad I'm seeing this type of play called as a foul. Earlier in this season, I called a similar type of play (similar in that A team's player kicked the ball and then kicked B team's player on the follow-through. I called it a foul on A). A's player made a somewhat wild swing at the ball, happened to kick it, and then made contact with B. Had another player similar this a couple of weeks later where I called a penalty kick (on this play, the defender got a little nick of the ball and quite a bit of the player with her kick).
A foul on A or by A?
 

Paul_10

Member
I'm genuinely not comfortable this was rescinded in all honesty. Was it a clear and obvious error to give a red card, I don't think so. I do however get the logic of kicking the ball and there being a follow through but where his foot landed in relation to Chilwells leg could be deemed as dangerous play. This is not like the Fulham West Ham match when VAR decided it wanted to get involved and Mike Dean somehow thought it was violent conduct, this however I can see why it could be classed as SFP.

Anyways I believe that is 3 red cards given which has been overturned after the ref gone to the monitor, I never thought I would see one overturned later on me nevermind 3!
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
I'm genuinely not comfortable this was rescinded in all honesty. Was it a clear and obvious error to give a red card, I don't think so. I do however get the logic of kicking the ball and there being a follow through but where his foot landed in relation to Chilwells leg could be deemed as dangerous play. This is not like the Fulham West Ham match when VAR decided it wanted to get involved and Mike Dean somehow thought it was violent conduct, this however I can see why it could be classed as SFP.

Anyways I believe that is 3 red cards given which has been overturned after the ref gone to the monitor, I never thought I would see one overturned later on me nevermind 3!
I presume this is part of the prem/PGMOL post-justifying why they didn't use the monitors last season.
I wonder if these three will find their way into 99.99% of VAR stats?
 
Top