A&H

Wolves V Swansea

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
It's cynical with no intent to play the ball, but still looks like a straight forward tripping offence to me. If that's now deemed to be worthy of a red, no game would ever get finished due to not enough players being on the pitch. :eek:
 
My first instinct is yellow and I’m plucking at straws here but is there excessive force. Usually when attempting to stop a counter attack the player would be pulled back or tripped in a way where the ball was at least somewhere near.
 
Back in the day players fouled 1000% times worse than this and stayed on the pitch, I accept that some of that wasn't acceptable but issuing a straight RC for this is just too far the other way. This will be rescinded I'm sure....
 
This was a Yellow and will almost certainly be recinded but what does the Lotg say we should do if there are two cautionable offences in the same play. For example in this one you could argue that Fer has commuted a professional foul and has acted at least recklessly/adopted an aggressive attitude
 
Ben Day said:
has acted at least recklessly/adopted an aggressive attitude
Click to expand...

Never mind - have just watched it again and he does not do this! Would still be interested in what the law says about two cautionable offences in the same action
 
PGMOL referees have been told to go red if a player kicks an opponent when the ball isn't playable. Already happened before with Lansbury and Xhaka, and if Taylor hadn't sent off it would have affected his assessment.

The argument is that any force is excessive force as it is impossible to play the ball. I've seen players badly injured from innocuous trips, and I support any initiate to get intentional fouling out of the game.
 
RustyRef said:
PGMOL referees have been told to go red if a player kicks an opponent when the ball isn't playable. Already happened before with Lansbury and Xhaka, and if Taylor hadn't sent off it would have affected his assessment.

The argument is that any force is excessive force as it is impossible to play the ball. I've seen players badly injured from innocuous trips, and I support any initiate to get intentional fouling out of the game.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with this sentiment at all...but why is this information limited to the top level? Why have players/media/lower level refs not been briefed as well? If the game wants this sort of 'tackle' out of the game then everyone needs to know it's unacceptable and the sanction that will follow
 
Running across the back of a players legs and tripping the opponent is one thing, or even attempting to gain possession of the ball and causing a tripping offence.

But he's blatantly just kicked the wolves player with no intention or attempt to play the ball, for me it's VC and a RC.

And that is also coming from my perspective as a SCFC fan. Fer is a lazy sod.
 
RustyRef said:
PGMOL referees have been told to go red if a player kicks an opponent when the ball isn't playable. Already happened before with Lansbury and Xhaka, and if Taylor hadn't sent off it would have affected his assessment.

The argument is that any force is excessive force as it is impossible to play the ball. I've seen players badly injured from innocuous trips, and I support any initiate to get intentional fouling out of the game.
Click to expand...
I am not sure about this 'instruction'.

There are 7 'acts' in the law which are fouls when done careless/recklessly or with excessive force. Using this argument all those seven fouls should be red card offences when done not challenging for the ball. If this was the case why not just say it in the lotg? In fact lotg specifically says this for strike to head only and nothing else.

It seems a bit excessive (pun intended) to just send players off because we want to remove intentional fouls.

Keeping in mind the definition of excessive force and VC within the LOTG. This for me didn't fit either definition.
 
I had a similar challenge earlier this season in a game I was observing. The intent was out of revenge for an early challenge, and I consider that the player should have been dismissed for VC. This was a kick, not a tackle!

Let's see what the FA opinion is, as this could be a step changer at some levels for tactical fouls.
 
one said:
I am not sure about this 'instruction'.

There are 7 'acts' in the law which are fouls when done careless/recklessly or with excessive force. Using this argument all those seven fouls should be red card offences when done not challenging for the ball. If this was the case why not just say it in the lotg? In fact lotg specifically says this for strike to head only and nothing else.

It seems a bit excessive (pun intended) to just send players off because we want to remove intentional fouls.

Keeping in mind the definition of excessive force and VC within the LOTG. This for me didn't fit either definition.
Click to expand...


Serious foul play is defined as ....

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play

As I said before, if you can't win the ball then surely any force is excessive as it simply shouldn't be happening? If we look at the dictionary definition of excessive - "more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate" - then I would say the challenge uses "more than necessary" excessive force, as simply any challenge is not necessary.

It could also go down as VC, as if you take the ball out of the equation he is deliberately kicking an opponent with no attempt whatsoever to play the ball.
 
RustyRef said:
Serious foul play is defined as ....

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play

As I said before, if you can't win the ball then surely any force is excessive as it simply shouldn't be happening? If we look at the dictionary definition of excessive - "more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate" - then I would say the challenge uses "more than necessary" excessive force, as simply any challenge is not necessary.

It could also go down as VC, as if you take the ball out of the equation he is deliberately kicking an opponent with no attempt whatsoever to play the ball.
Click to expand...
I understand the thinking here. However you could easily then extend it to any 'off the ball' type situation where a player tactically grabs an opponent (maybe causing him to fall to the floor) or deliberately steps in his path to block his run. The "force" used in this type of contact is also excessive as none is required. But at the moment, in all of these cases 'what football expects' is a yellow card and if the authorities want to change that to red then they will need a full on PR offensive to get the message across coherently ....

There are of course some cynical challenges (like Puncheon's on De Bruyne) that definitely fit into the VC territory. But, for me, Fer's challenge was a simple YC where the chance of any serious injury to the other player was miniscule.
 
Russell Jones said:
I understand the thinking here. However you could easily then extend it to any 'off the ball' type situation where a player tactically grabs an opponent (maybe causing him to fall to the floor) or deliberately steps in his path to block his run. The "force" used in this type of contact is also excessive as none is required. But at the moment, in all of these cases 'what football expects' is a yellow card and if the authorities want to change that to red then they will need a full on PR offensive to get the message across coherently ....

There are of course some cynical challenges (like Puncheon's on De Bruyne) that definitely fit into the VC territory. But, for me, Fer's challenge was a simple YC where the chance of any serious injury to the other player was miniscule.
Click to expand...

Miniscule? Tripping can have the highest probability of serious damage. A combined loss of balance and unawareness can have terrible consquences.
 
JD1 said:
Miniscule? Tripping can have the highest probability of serious damage. A combined loss of balance and unawareness can have terrible consquences.
Click to expand...
On concrete maybe but on a normal FOP ... ? :rolleyes: . Suffice to say that in many hundred games, I've seen plenty of serious injuries from proper SFP, a few from VC and a good number from sheer bad luck. But can't remember a single serious injury from a normal trip :)
 
Russell Jones said:
On concrete maybe but on a normal FOP ... ? :rolleyes: . Suffice to say that in many hundred games, I've seen plenty of serious injuries from proper SFP, a few from VC and a good number from sheer bad luck. But can't remember a single serious injury from a normal trip :)
Click to expand...
Complete common sense RJ, If this is VC then football may as well become no contact Tag football...Ridiculous!!
 
Its 100 times more violent conduct than the infamous Beckham flick of a boot

This incident is a kick at an opponent, not an attempt to play ball, its an outright kick, and a kick at an opponent is violent conduct

Leaving aside my thoughts on what it is, it also should be a red card just to demonstrate to a player that that kinda behaviour is not acceptable on a football park so bye bye get inside

I have no time whatsoever for anyone who just takes a free shot at an opponent

The LOTG are there to both protect, and punish, incidents like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top