A&H

Wolves V Swansea

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a week when a player physically grabs a referee and gets absolutely nothing, not even a yellow and the other called him 'a son of a bitch' and maybe more serious. I haven't heard that either player has been charged by the FA as this would help referees across the world rather than the pettiness of the RC for Fer.
 
The Referee Store
Madley must have had more 7.6 or worse over the festive period than most folk are allowed over a season
Thats totally irrelevant to an entirely diff ref in a diff game though

Fer cannot be judged to be reckless, or trip, as both apply to an attempt to tackle
Nobody can say this is an attempt to tackle.

Which leads it to zero punishment, or violent conduct. A kick out is a kick out, regardless of the force used, same as a punch is a punch

If am observing a game and I see that Fer incident, if a red is not produced then am going home and phoning the ref and wishing him good luck for next week

(Ok slight exaggeration but it gets my point across)
 
This is a standard trip and the football world would expect a yellow card. These sort of trips aren’t rare so where are the all red cards if the pgmo have issued advice that it’s a red?
The Arsenal one was a clear kick, this was a trip.

There are plenty of deliberate trips with no intent to play the ball when the ball is within playing distance, very similar risk of injury...
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Madley must have had more 7.6 or worse over the festive period than most folk are allowed over a season
Thats totally irrelevant to an entirely diff ref in a diff game though

Fer cannot be judged to be reckless, or trip, as both apply to an attempt to tackle
Nobody can say this is an attempt to tackle.

Which leads it to zero punishment, or violent conduct. A kick out is a kick out, regardless of the force used, same as a punch is a punch

If am observing a game and I see that Fer incident, if a red is not produced then am going home and phoning the ref and wishing him good luck for next week

(Ok slight exaggeration but it gets my point across)
Click to expand...
I've been repeatedly told in recent discussions that the LOTG frequently uses the English language in a different way to how we do in everyday life. So unless you can find this definition specifically laid out in the LOTG, a lot of your argument is rendered moot.
 
The LOTG cannot and dont claim to cove every definition known to man.
Its how you interpret what you see that makes you the referee that you are.
If you deem that as a trip, fine,punish it as a trip
My "argument" is actually my point of view, which is I do and will class such incidents as violent conduct.
Anyone take a pot shot kick at an opponent whilst not challenging for the ball on my park will be treated as committing an act of brutality, whether the force be enough to snap every bone in the body, or little enough to smudge lipstick
If you can be dismissed for "attempting to strike" i.e not actually connecting, then, I am going to dismiss for a kick which actually connects

As did this referee. I sincerely hope and trust the red is upheld. But even then if it is, am sure somebody somewhere despite it being issued by a FIFA elite ref and then backed up by an educated panel, will still come back and say no, its wrong.
 
VC for me.

I was involved in a National League game recently where there was a very similar incident. Attacking break, far side, half way line. What was interesting was player reaction: Expectation was yellow card, and this was given at the time. Whilst one set of benches did ask why it wasn't a red, it was from a (very optimistic!) DOGSO shout.

However, the video was placed on the far side of the pitch and highlighted that the player had clearly no chance EVER of getting the ball and just hacked the player down. It wasn't a trip. It was a kick to make sure he took him out.

The ultimate verdict of the Observer and subsequent KMI panel (as all such things get reviewed) was that a red card would have been the appropriate course of action.
 
I've been sent off for one of these. I think red card is right. It's VC. It's a red.

We should be applauding RM for getting this one right.
 
RIP to the simple attempted lazy trip, some older defenders made a career out of it but sadly its time has passed...I bid you goodbye, old friend, adios, arrivederci, it was good while it lasted..... :cool:
 
It seems to me that kicking out at an opponent when it is not part of an attempt to play the ball has for quite a long time, been considered as violent conduct even though it is true that it is not clearly and unambiguously spelled out as such in the Laws. As was alluded to earlier, that was (as far as we know) the rationale for David Beckham's sending off in the 1998 World Cup. While various people have, over the years, expressed an opinion that this was a harsh red card, I don't remember that as being the overwhelming majority opinion, most people (as far as I recall) were more prone to criticise Beckham for being so stupid as to get himself sent off in this way. I don't remember the referee getting too much excessively harsh criticism for the decision, either.

So I think a lot of this comes down to whether you think the Fer incident should be seen more akin to an off the ball incident or rather, as part of an attempt to tackle a player who because he has the ball, is considered fair game. I think it has more of the characteristics of an off the ball incident than of a genuine challenge for the ball and I would love to see this kind of cynical ploy removed from the game so I have no great problem if there is a directive that this should result in a red card. As others have said though, it would be nice, if this is indeed some sort of official directive, for it to be more widely publicised.
 
The HUGE difference between Beckham incident and the Fer incident is that Beckham's was a kick-out which is almost always retaliatory and intended to hurt the opponent. The Fer incident is a kick (not kick-out) which was intended to trip the opponent and a tactical move.

A tactical foul and being cautioned for it (taking one for the team) is part of football and is accepted as part of the game by the footballing community. It is totally different to violence.

Don't get me wrong. A kick designed to trip could also be red if excessive force is used. We had one from Rooney a couple of seasons ago.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
It seems to me that kicking out at an opponent when it is not part of an attempt to play the ball has for quite a long time, been considered as violent conduct even though it is true that it is not clearly and unambiguously spelled out as such in the Laws. As was alluded to earlier, that was (as far as we know) the rationale for David Beckham's sending off in the 1998 World Cup. While various people have, over the years, expressed an opinion that this was a harsh red card, I don't remember that as being the overwhelming majority opinion, most people (as far as I recall) were more prone to criticise Beckham for being so stupid as to get himself sent off in this way. I don't remember the referee getting too much excessively harsh criticism for the decision, either.

So I think a lot of this comes down to whether you think the Fer incident should be seen more akin to an off the ball incident or rather, as part of an attempt to tackle a player who because he has the ball, is considered fair game. I think it has more of the characteristics of an off the ball incident than of a genuine challenge for the ball and I would love to see this kind of cynical ploy removed from the game so I have no great problem if there is a directive that this should result in a red card. As others have said though, it would be nice, if this is indeed some sort of official directive, for it to be more widely publicised.
Click to expand...
I think the thing people forget about the Beckham red is that it came in the wake of a directive specifically stating that referees had been told to clamp down on retaliation at this world cup (I remember this because I didn't know what that word meant and had to ask my dad!). As such, "harsh" or not, he was always going to get sent for it and it was always a stupid thing to do - but I think that incident does allow us to separate "retaliation" from "off the ball" incidents.

As you say, I'm open to the idea of a directive specifying that this kind of tactical trip should be always considered VC. But in the absence of that directive, I'm giving a yellow for a careless or reckless tackle (for the cynical nature) and a red only if it meets the usual SFP criteria.
 
Ok. Fer instead of the kick out at the opponents leg, kicks him in the waist
Point being, what you are punishing in the Fer incident is the act of the kick out, not the trip, as the tripping act applies when making a attempt, however well it is disguised, at the ball
Because Fer connected low down and it does not look to be a painful or malicious act, I think folk then assume its ok, a yellow card for a trip is punishment enough
Alas, the act which is taking place here, is the kick out. And, a player who deliberatley kicks an opponent, certainly on my park, will be dismissed for violent conduct. The ball, in ths clip, to me, is not part of the equation.

Its not SFP, there is no tackle for the ball, therefore its not a foul tackle.
It is a trip, but only because the kicking out act connected low down at ankle.
The act I see committed here is the kick out, regardless of where on the opponent it connects

If kicking out at an opponent, or, swinging an arm at opponent, and missing, is considered VC, then, kicking out, and actually making contact, is also VC

Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, which I think will go ex ref says red, other two say yellow, I will be dismisssing anyone guilty of a similar offence on a game which am officiating. Taking a pot shot kick for free at an opponent just because you feel you can, has no place on a game in which an involved.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Ok. Fer instead of the kick out at the opponents leg, kicks him in the waist
Point being, what you are punishing in the Fer incident is the act of the kick out, not the trip, as the tripping act applies when making a attempt, however well it is disguised, at the ball
Because Fer connected low down and it does not look to be a painful or malicious act, I think folk then assume its ok, a yellow card for a trip is punishment enough
Alas, the act which is taking place here, is the kick out. And, a player who deliberatley kicks an opponent, certainly on my park, will be dismissed for violent conduct. The ball, in ths clip, to me, is not part of the equation.

Its not SFP, there is no tackle for the ball, therefore its not a foul tackle.
It is a trip, but only because the kicking out act connected low down at ankle.
The act I see committed here is the kick out, regardless of where on the opponent it connects

If kicking out at an opponent, or, swinging an arm at opponent, and missing, is considered VC, then, kicking out, and actually making contact, is also VC

Regardless of the outcome of the appeal, which I think will go ex ref says red, other two say yellow, I will be dismisssing anyone guilty of a similar offence on a game which am officiating. Taking a pot shot kick for free at an opponent just because you feel you can, has no place on a game in which an involved.
Click to expand...
Again, this is a rule you've made up. If you assume that's a fact, the rest of your post makes sense and I would be on board - but there's nothing from IFAB or the FA that states this, therefore the rest of your logic is based on a shaky initial assumption.
 
GraemeS said:
Again, this is a rule you've made up. If you assume that's a fact, the rest of your post makes sense and I would be on board - but there's nothing from IFAB or the FA that states this, therefore the rest of your logic is based on a shaky initial assumption.
Click to expand...


Well you referee you games to your interpretation, based on your experience, your knowledge, your mentors and your instincts, i will do so to mine and am very content with that, and to date, its safe to say its served me well
Kicking out at an opponent regardless of how I have worded something on an online forum, always has been and always will be a red card offence on my park. If you choose to keep people on your park who kick out at opponents because thats how the rules read then nobody can have an issue with that either.
Someone who takes or tries to take ball past someone, and opponent extends leg to halt his progress= trip
someone who with no possibilty of making a tackle deliberately kicks out at opponent, making contact= violent conduct
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Red card for violent conduct
Thats simply a kick at the opponent
A trip would be when tackling for ball and you miss it but trip the legs
This is a blatent kick
Click to expand...
I've some sympathy with that - I also sense there's a bit of a kick there.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Well you referee you games to your interpretation, based on your experience, your knowledge, your mentors and your instincts, i will do so to mine and am very content with that, and to date, its safe to say its served me well
Kicking out at an opponent regardless of how I have worded something on an online forum, always has been and always will be a red card offence on my park. If you choose to keep people on your park who kick out at opponents because thats how the rules read then nobody can have an issue with that either.
Someone who takes or tries to take ball past someone, and opponent extends leg to halt his progress= trip
someone who with no possibilty of making a tackle deliberately kicks out at opponent, making contact= violent conduct
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I'm not happy to just accept "you ref to your standards and I'll ref to mine", because the inevitable consequence of that is that one of us is forced into the role of "last week's ref", reffing to his own rules and making life harder for his colleagues who do the job correctly.
That may well be me in this situation, but the forum exists to try and build consensus. Your interpretation vs mine is fine, but there's still a right and a wrong answer somewhere in here, and I think (especially considering the discussion is still fairly civil!) we should strive towards that?

So, you keep using the specific phrase "kicking out", which is both not in the LOTG as far as I can recall, and also, I think fairly misleading given that this is in my opinion a simple trip. (I appreciate that's a matter of interpretation, but can we go with it for the sake of the discussion?) A kick of an opponent in this context can meet the criteria for SFP fairly easily, but I don't think that's what you're arguing here? The debate essentially comes down to us deciding at what point C/R/EF stop's applying and any contact between opponents is simply unnecessary violent conduct? Given that this is something that occurred purely for tactical reasons, I'm looking at it with my C/R/EF head and saying there's no way it meets the criteria for the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top