The Ref Stop

What are you giving?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mintyref said:
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.......
Click to expand...
The Hull Oracle has spoken. Well said sir!
 
The Ref Stop
Just show my some evidence where this has been applied & I’ll think twice about my view, surely there are hundreds of videos where referees like yourselves have applied this action.
 
Mintyref said:
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.......
Click to expand...

By giving a idfk for playing in a dangerous manner would be applying the lotg.

Cricket can’t think of a sport (if u can call it that) that I detest more!
 
This tackle is an absolute legbreaker. It's filthy.

I'm very, very worried that there are referees on here who think that you can't award a card for PIADM. That's completely unsupported in the laws. Nothing in the laws states that a RC must be met with a DFK.
But okay, let's play that game for a moment.
One of the attributes a referee needs is knowledge of how to work the text of the LOTG to fit a situation. And for that you first need to know the LOTG. You need to know the LOTG back to front to find ways you can manipulate it (and if you don't know it back to front, why? You're getting paid to do a job).

Refereeing is also about understanding. Understanding the game, the intent behind the laws, the spirit of the game. And sometimes you may see an incident and need to think about how you can bend of manipulate the laws to get the outcome the incident really deserves. It may be that where you first think of in the laws you can't get the outcome you want, but if you understand the laws then you realise you can actually apply another passage, or argue it a different way, and get the outcome you know is needed.

Now, this incident needs a red card. Anybody on here who doesn't think it does needs to spend a bit of time thinking about what SFP means, and the role of cards in serious tackles. Because you absolutely cannot be permitting tackles like this on the field.

If, however, you mistakenly think that you can't award a RC for PIADM, then surely you'd agree that it's a tackle that deserves a RC.

So, fortunately it's very easy to apply a DFK for this. I'd argue an IFK fits best, but you could argue for a DFK. You could consider this 'attempts to kick an opponent' (given the opponent had to jump over the tackle, it's not really a stretch to apply that). OR it could come under 'tackles or challenges an opponent' 'using excessive force'.

cwyeary said:
But, there's nothing to say that a tackle cannot be careless, reckless, or uses excessive force when contact is not made with an opponent. There is nothing the laws that say you can sanction something as SFP and then give an IDFK restart.
Click to expand...
Your conclusion wasn't supported at all from the rest of your post, but anyway - there's actually nothing in the laws to state that SFP can only be applied to a DFK offence.

This is what the LOTG says

Serious foul play
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

Your position is not supported at all in the LOTG. However, if you're gong to stick to that position, fortunately it's very easy to find a DFK
 
I think the restart, dfk or idfk, as much as we would all like to be perfect, is irrelevant here
The over riding issue is that we remove somebody guilty of that kind of challenge from the fop
Thats the priory, safety and protection of players, so one less person on the park who thinks thats an acceptable manner to play in.
 
Men in Black said:
By giving a idfk for playing in a dangerous manner would be applying the lotg.
Click to expand...

Yes. And not sending the player off would be ignoring the LOTG and all aspects of player safety.
You can find an argument for a DFK as well (see my post above).


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.
Click to expand...
You may read it that way but you'd be incorrect, at least in the case of 'attempts to'. Contact is not required for a red card - it's not even required for a DFK.

I presume you also know that 'tackles of challenges' 'using careless/reckless/excessive force' is a foul, yes? And contact isn't noted as a prerequisite for that?

the LOTG states:

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
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

Are you actually trying to argue that the tackle in question hasn't endangered the safety of an opponent, or hasn't used excessive force?

Forget the LOTG for a moment, and just answer that question. Sometimes we can get too tied up in words and forget about the game.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Yes. And not sending the player off would be ignoring the LOTG and all aspects of player safety.
You can find an argument for a DFK as well (see my post above).



You may read it that way but you'd be incorrect, at least in the case of 'attempts to'. Contact is not required for a red card - it's not even required for a DFK.

I presume you also know that 'tackles of challenges' 'using careless/reckless/excessive force' is a foul, yes? And contact isn't noted as a prerequisite for that?

the LOTG states:

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
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

Are you actually trying to argue that the tackle in question hasn't endangered the safety of an opponent, or hasn't used excessive force?

Forget the LOTG for a moment, and just answer that question. Sometimes we can get too tied up in words and forget about the game.
Click to expand...

With regards to your point of there is an argument for a dfk & am I aware that careless,reckless & excessive force doesn’t state contact has to be made.. ive clearly covered both of those points in my response to the subject, I’m not sure if it’s just my posts you don’t read in full or if it’s everyone’s but look back at my conversation with Ciley & you’ll see I’ve mentioned both of your points when puting my case forward.

In terms of puting the lotg to one side for a moment & looking at the challenge itself yes of course it’s horrific it’s outright ridiculous BUT as neither the dfk or idfk route are black and white & clear cut its down to the ref.

Out of interest are we saying a player that deliberately makes a dive for the ball on the goal line with an outstretched hand that totally misses the ball is sent off & a penalty is awarded?

Also last man chasing back the striker takes a swing at his leg in the box but makes no contact are we sending him off & awarding a penalty?
 
Why have playing in a dangerous manner in the book if your not going to use it.

Also I’m still waiting for the highlight reel for red cards where a player jumps in like Gerrard and no contact was made.

36 red cards in the premier league last season how many for the above.

Hundreds of red cards in the premier league over the last 5 seasons how many for the above, show me one?
 
Men in Black said:
With regards to your point of there is an argument for a dfk & am I aware that careless,reckless & excessive force doesn’t state contact has to be made.. ive clearly covered both of those points in my response to the subject, I’m not sure if it’s just my posts you don’t read in full or if it’s everyone’s but look back at my conversation with Ciley & you’ll see I’ve mentioned both of your points when puting my case forward.

In terms of puting the lotg to one side for a moment & looking at the challenge itself yes of course it’s horrific it’s outright ridiculous BUT as neither the dfk or idfk route are black and white & clear cut its down to the ref.

Out of interest are we saying a player that deliberately makes a dive for the ball on the goal line with an outstretched hand that totally misses the ball is sent off & a penalty is awarded?

Also last man chasing back the striker takes a swing at his leg in the box but makes no contact are we sending him off & awarding a penalty?
Click to expand...

First off, you can respond without a smartarse comment. You may find people are a bit more patient. Enough is enough.
Second, as I've pointed out you've stated your thoughts on contact which are also incorrect.

So if you agree that it's a horrific tackle, why are you then arguing that no card should be issued?

As for your other questions, I'll bite. Not that either of them are relevant.

Your first one, about the attempted handball - I'm going to put that one back to you. What does the LOTG state about attempts to handle the ball?
As for the second one, you could, depending on the scenario.

As for your 'show me' comments - Just because it's uncommon, even rare, doesn't mean it isn't a red card.

Men in Black said:
Why have playing in a dangerous manner in the book if your not going to use it.
Click to expand...
Could say the same for SFP....
 
You yourself deem the challenge as, horrific

If thats not enough for your red card to be produced, then you are fooling your own mind

If as referee you see a horrific tackle on your pitch, you treat it as such.

It cant be much simplier
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
First off, you can respond without a smartarse comment. You may find people are a bit more patient. Enough is enough.
Second, as I've pointed out you've stated your thoughts on contact which are also incorrect.

So if you agree that it's a horrific tackle, why are you then arguing that no card should be issued?

As for your other questions, I'll bite. Not that either of them are relevant.

Your first one, about the attempted handball - I'm going to put that one back to you. What does the LOTG state about attempts to handle the ball?
As for the second one, you could, depending on the scenario.

As for your 'show me' comments - Just because it's uncommon, even rare, doesn't mean it isn't a red card.


Could say the same for SFP....
Click to expand...

We’ll leave it there before we go the same way as last time, don’t forget to hit the report button on your way out for someone having a constructive view that you disagree with.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
You yourself deem the challenge as, horrific

If thats not enough for your red card to be produced, then you are fooling your own mind

If as referee you see a horrific tackle on your pitch, you treat it as such.

It cant be much simplier
Click to expand...

I’m slowly swinging your way with it Ciley it’s just the contact part I have a slight issue with it just doesn’t quite sit right with me.
 
Men in Black said:
We’ll leave it there before we go the same way as last time, don’t forget to hit the report button on your way out for someone having a constructive view that you disagree with.
Click to expand...

You are disageering with someone special. Yourself
You correctly define the tackle as horrific but want to leave it unpunished?
Bizarre

When someone leaves the ground with two feet into a lunge, the correct thought process is starting at yelow and working your way up
 
ENOUGH.

General warning as this is going nowhere.

If you are on the wind-up stop now. Think before you post; sometimes you can be funny doing them but to others you're coming across as provocative simply for the sake of it, and attention seeking.

If you think you're being trolled or whatever, don't bite.

I single out no user in particular here, but consider the riot act read. This is now closed to prevent crass replies, gross stupidity and the fact that as this is virtual I cannot use tables and the 3D. (Don't you dare! :p )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top