A&H

Restart after ball put out of play for an injury

TheRef

TheRef

New Member
Amateur Cup tie, Red vs Blue, teams from opposite sides of the country so never normally play each other.

Midway through the second half, scores are level at 2-2.

Red player injures himself attempting to make a tackle but not serious enough to warrant stopping the game for it. Blue team respond by sportingly putting the ball out of play in order the treatment to be administered. As we go to restart play with a throw in to Red, the thrower says to me that he will give it back to the keeper which I have no problem with. Not manufacturing the outcome by any means, but just the sporting thing to do.

However, Red 3 is demanding that his teammate throw him the ball and he will "put it out for a shy right at the corner so they can't get out" or something to that effect, basically saying not to give it back to the keeper.

Red thrower throws the ball to Red 3, who takes a touch readying himself to put it back out for a throw in the corner, when a Blue player runs in and nicks the ball away from him and plays a square ball across the defensive line. No issue about this from me as long as the throw in was legal, which it was, then we play on.

Red 3 is not happy about losing the ball and proceeds to body check the Blue player who tackled him too the ground, a couple of seconds after the ball has gone.

Issued a straight Red Card for VC to Red 3 and cue all the other Red players complaining about the Blue player not letting them give the ball back. Eventually everything settles down again and we restart with a free kick to Blue.

Just one of those moments where the game goes from 0-100 in the blink of an eye.

My question is, was I correct to issue the red card or would a yellow have been enough?

Interestingly enough, despite playing the rest of the 90 minutes and extra time with 10 men, the Red team still won 6-5.
 
The Referee Store
Red seems a bit harsh but I can understand you were feeling the intent. I personally find it hard to imagine an excessive force "check". Kick, push, tackle would be easier to understand as the mood could of lead to excessive. What did you do with the blue tackle to the ground after?
 
Then what I'd done blown the whistle asked for it to be done correctly as it Is in respect not FairPlay
 
WilliamD said:
Red seems a bit harsh but I can understand you were feeling the intent. I personally find it hard to imagine an excessive force "check". Kick, push, tackle would be easier to understand as the mood could of lead to excessive. What did you do with the blue tackle to the ground after?
Click to expand...

I looked at it more as the fact that the ball had gone, the Red player was clearly frustrated and deliberately checked him. Went with a red becuase I thought that it was excessive in that it was no where near the play and was a deliberate act. Possibly could have got away with just a yellow but felt that red was correct at the time.

The blue player didn't actually tackle the red player after he had been checked, I missed out some punctuation and a word by accident. That sentence should actually read - proceeds to body check the Blue player, who tackled him originally, to the ground -
 
To some extent it sounds to me that you sent him off for being a bit of a prat - one of those have to be there moments though I think. If the blue heard what he was planning to do then to me well within his rights to nick the hall off him.
 
Yeah, I echo County Down Ref, the red player sounds like he'd have caused problems later on with that attitude. Get em off while you can!
 
On a technical note, we're not allowed to manufacture drop balls but this was a throw in, so isn't a little "manufacturing" allowed in this scenario?
 
Took the words out of my mouth Paul, the law change specifically relates to "Manufacturing a dropped ball", having said that we can only ever advise and had the the team not wanted to give the ball back then so be it. @ref craig when asked why did you blow your whistle, what reason are going to give? You have no get out here at all. As for the red you have answered your own question, you thought it was excessive force so there a red card was correct. Nobody else was there so it is very difficult asking an opinion. If you think it is excessive it is excessive.
 
TheRef said:
Went with a red becuase I thought that it was excessive in that it was no where near the play and was a deliberate act.
Click to expand...

Be careful though, as that's not the definition of excessive force is it? It's excessive if he endangered the safety of his opponent, etc., not because you thought it was out of order and he wasn't playing fair.

Sounds like it should have been a caution unless you can demonstrate it was excessive by definition of the LOTG. Just my 2p
 
Monotone Whistle said:
Be careful though, as that's not the definition of excessive force is it? It's excessive if he endangered the safety of his opponent, etc., not because you thought it was out of order and he wasn't playing fair.

Sounds like it should have been a caution unless you can demonstrate it was excessive by definition of the LOTG. Just my 2p
Click to expand...


if the ball isnt there then surely an aggressive bodycheck that puts a player to ground is excessive?
 
richard ramjane said:
if the ball isnt there then surely an aggressive bodycheck that puts a player to ground is excessive?
Click to expand...
As Monotone said, the definition of excessive force in the LOTG is "when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"
If the safety of the opponent was not endangered then it was not excessive force according to the LOTG. Not saying that he OP was wrong but the argument that I have sometimes heard that as no force at all was needed in this situation then any force is excessive is not supported in the LOTG.
 
McTavish said:
As Monotone said, the definition of excessive force in the LOTG is "when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"
If the safety of the opponent was not endangered then it was not excessive force according to the LOTG. Not saying that he OP was wrong but the argument that I have sometimes heard that as no force at all was needed in this situation then any force is excessive is not supported in the LOTG.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that @McTavish i think you may be confusing the word "and" for "or" it can be one or the other.
 
McTavish said:
As Monotone said, the definition of excessive force in the LOTG is "when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"
If the safety of the opponent was not endangered then it was not excessive force according to the LOTG. Not saying that he OP was wrong but the argument that I have sometimes heard that as no force at all was needed in this situation then any force is excessive is not supported in the LOTG.
Click to expand...

obviously i wasnt there to witness it but, from a players point of view, if the ball isnt in the vicinity then i would not be braced for any impact unless it was coming head on....
a forceful barge enough to put me on the floor when i'm not expecting it could cause injury.
if that happened to a player in front of me then i'd also be issuing red.
it could however have transpired that he was aware of the approaching player and made the most of it... only those present would have been able to determine that
 
Copy and pasted directly from page 88 of the Laws of the Game:

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses
excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
 
Cheshire Ref said:
Copy and pasted directly from page 88 of the Laws of the Game:

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

Just going to quote that myself, thought I was going mad there! "OR" is the key word AND included in laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top