The Ref Stop

What are you giving?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll pick better battles to fight. Giving an IDFK (presumably for PIADM) and then a red for SFP is not supported in the LOTG but it's pretty clear I won't convince you otherwise.
 
The Ref Stop
cwyeary said:
I'll pick better battles to fight. Giving an IDFK (presumably for PIADM) and then a red for SFP is not supported in the LOTG but it's pretty clear I won't convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...
Likewise. :)

I am glad though we had this 'battle'. I can now see a new way of looking at why "attempt to" was included for only some of the DFK offences I hadn't thought of before.
 
@cwyeary, having thought about this a bit more, i might give you something to think about as well.

By definitions PIDAM is a challenge which is at least careless ("threatens injury to someone") when against opponents. Given that your view is any challenge that is careless or above, contact or not, is a DFK, wouldn't that imply when an opponent is involved we should never have a IFK for PIDAM (it must be the more serious offence of DFK)? This would be contrary to many educational videos I have seen from FIFA.

As a side note, interestingly the definition of PIDAM no longer rules out physical contact but it can be inferred from other changes.
 
Last edited:
JH said:
Just some context from the laws to aid the conversation:

"Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the
ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes
preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses
excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force
or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Playing in a dangerous manner is not listed as a cautionable offence, therefore to caution Gerrard, you would have to give a reckless DFK offence.

Nowhere in 'Direct free kicks' does it exclude offences without contact, it just says that if there is contact, it HAS to be a DFK.

It is certainly a lunge, using both legs and endangering the safety of an opponent, therefore it SHOULD be red, especially in the professional game.

Feel free to correct me, this is just my understanding of it. I've confused myself about contact vs no contact even more typing this out.
Click to expand...

So why have playing in a dangerous manner in the laws of the game if your not going to use it, surely it’s there purely for cases with no contact hence nobody was hurt & no caution needed.

For me the Lotg give you the option of awarding an idfk & keeping your red in your pocket, that’s the route I’d take.

I’m yet to see a lunge completely miss an opponent make no contact receive a red card in the pro game on TV, I see it quite often a player go sliding in like a madman miss the opponent & ball completely the ref 9 times out of 10 just plays on.
 
A lunge is enough to set alarm bells ringing
A lunge which endangers opponents safety, bear in mind, it says, endangers. It does not say you have to actually connect
Chances of playing ball? None, nowhere near it, never touched bal, Veron saw to that
Speed of chalenge? V fast
In control of his actions? Flying thro mid aid two footed, no, not in control for me

I cant find a single justification to not show a red.
 
Men in Black said:
So why have playing in a dangerous manner in the laws of the game if your not going to use it, surely it’s there purely for cases with no contact hence nobody was hurt & no caution needed.

For me the Lotg give you the option of awarding an idfk & keeping your red in your pocket, that’s the route I’d take.

I’m yet to see a lunge completely miss an opponent make no contact receive a red card in the pro game on TV, I see it quite often a player go sliding in like a madman miss the opponent & ball completely the ref 9 times out of 10 just plays on.
Click to expand...



There is a reason nobody was hurt. Not due to Gerrards actions
The reason nobody was hurt waa because Vernon was clever enough to get out the way. Gerrards actions still stand. You cant go easy on Gerrard because of the evasive actions taken by his target!
 
Ciley Myrus said:
There is a reason nobody was hurt. Not due to Gerrards actions
The reason nobody was hurt waa because Vernon was clever enough to get out the way. Gerrards actions still stand. You cant go easy on Gerrard because of the evasive actions taken by his target!
Click to expand...

But yet the evasive action taken by his target is clearly part of the idfk description for playing in a dangerous manner.

PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

If the Gerrard & Veron example is not a case of not playing the ball for fear of injury then I don’t know what is.

Everything that happened in the clip is described above..

So why not use the instructive given to you by the lotg.
 
So you are letting Gerrards horrific flying through the air two footed lunge go unpunished because Veron got out the way?

Thats like letting the armed robber go free because although he held up the shop at gun point, its ok because he never actually fired the gun, or he did, but missed poor Mrs Patel.
 
Here is another way of looking at it, by not punishing that action, you are deeming it to be acceptable, thus giving free range for players to fly through the air two footed, whether or not they hurt someone.

By not punishing that, you are saying its ok. And if you deem that challenge as ok on your pitch, then thats your call. Me and it seems the other 98% of folk do not think that challenge is ok on a football pitch.
 
Last edited:
Men in Black said:
But yet the evasive action taken by his target is clearly part of the idfk description for playing in a dangerous manner.

PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER

Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.

If the Gerrard & Veron example is not a case of not playing the ball for fear of injury then I don’t know what is.

Everything that happened in the clip is described above..

So why not use the instructive given to you by the lotg.
Click to expand...
You would. But then you hsve to decide careless, reckless, excesive force. So by no caution you are saying
player shows a lack of attention or consideration when
making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction
is needed when in reality
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
 
cwyeary said:
QZhe0dn.jpg


Excessive force/playing in a dangerous manner is defined in the DFK section.
Click to expand...
I am with @one here. I think what you are showing here is just another example of how poorly the lotg are written and structured.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
So you are letting Gerrards horrific flying through the air two footed lunge go unpunished because Veron got out the way?

Thats like letting the armed robber go free because although he held up the shop at gun point, its ok because he never actually fired the gun, or he did, but missed poor Mrs Patel.
Click to expand...

Don’t be silly comparing it to Armed robbery as there is no part of the law that says you get away with armed robbery for not firing a gun.

There is a part of the lotg that says you get away with no caution for playing in a dangerous manner.

We have careless,reckless & excessive force as a guideline to determine what colour card to go with (granted it doesn’t mention contact but we all know that’s what it’s based on) as it doesn’t mention contact you can twist it to suite your argument.

If they simply added contact into careless, reckless & excessive force then I think it would invalidate your case.

I read it as the above are cases with contact & you apply the colour card appropriate, playing in a dangerous manner making no contact & a opponent jumping out of the way for fear of there safety is IDFK & no caution.

As with many laws you can argue the Toss both ways but I’ll stick to my view for what it’s worth unless of course you can find me a highlights reel of lunges that made no contact like Gerrards that earned the player a Red card, I’ll go grab my popcorn..

Failing that post some armed robbery clips, love a good old armed robbery when discussing the lotg ;)
 
I trust you never saw the pic I posted.
Gerrard is four feet off the ground at the point I froze it
Perfectly fine...
 
Dangerous, is for example a high boot.

Sfp is two footed lunge mid air at speed with no chance of touching the ball and not caring for your opponents well being
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Dangerous, is for example a high boot.

Sfp is two footed lunge mid air at speed with no chance of touching the ball and not caring for your opponents well being
Click to expand...

So playing in a dangerous manner in the lotg clearly states high boot & not lunges?

Like I said you can twist the lotg to suite any argument.
 
No its whatever you deem as referee to be dangerous. Someone about to try control a ball say waist heigt who is not aware an opponent is there can be dangerous.
Someone who uses arms in a jump, as a tool, not a weapon, could be dangerous.


Which is nothing like flying two footed through mid air with no regard for opponents safety with no chance of playing the ball, at speed.
 
Men in Black said:
Don’t be silly comparing it to Armed robbery as there is no part of the law that says you get away with armed robbery for not firing a gun.

There is a part of the lotg that says you get away with no caution for playing in a dangerous manner.

We have careless,reckless & excessive force as a guideline to determine what colour card to go with (granted it doesn’t mention contact but we all know that’s what it’s based on) as it doesn’t mention contact you can twist it to suite your argument.

If they simply added contact into careless, reckless & excessive force then I think it would invalidate your case.

I read it as the above are cases with contact & you apply the colour card appropriate, playing in a dangerous manner making no contact & a opponent jumping out of the way for fear of there safety is IDFK & no caution.

As with many laws you can argue the Toss both ways but I’ll stick to my view for what it’s worth unless of course you can find me a highlights reel of lunges that made no contact like Gerrards that earned the player a Red card, I’ll go grab my popcorn..

Failing that post some armed robbery clips, love a good old armed robbery when discussing the lotg ;)
Click to expand...

MIB, you clearly need to go back to referee school, that challenge, that close to another player is a red card all day every day. The only times you're likely to "get away with it" are those occasions where the timing is so poor, the lunge or whatever you want to call it is bloody miles away. Even then, I'll be coming back to the offender at the next opportunity and pointing out the error of their ways.

If you don't want to apply the lotg and listen to the pearls of wisdom on here then do yourself a favour.....go be a cricket umpire or something.......
 
Men in Black said:
So playi

Like I said you can twist the lotg to suite any argument.
Click to expand...
No you cant. What makes you think that playing in a dangerous manner carries no sanction, ever?
Remember you need to decide if the player was careless, reckless or used excessive force. That is what determines card colour, not specifically the offence that was committed, but the manner in which it was.
 
The other defining way of looking at is whilst examples of dangerous play may be absent from the lotg and up for debate, the criteria for SFP or indeed VC if the ball is not in play, is clear on the LOTG.


Any player who LUNGES at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, side or behind using one or BOTH legs with excessive force OR endangeous the safety of an opponent is SFP.

Which is exactly textbook Gerrards challenge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top