SOU Vs WHU
- Thread starter one
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
You accept it is careless and it is a foul. "Using excessive force is when a player ... or endangers the safety of an opponent" you don't see this?
Easy SFP for me. I dont have a single bit of doubt about it. But that is my opinion. If he can see the ball, surely he can see Adam's head. The problems is he gives kicking the ball priority over the huge risk in safety.
Not saying I'm on either side of the red card argument at the moment, just playing devil's advocate...
@one Adams has inadvertently moved his head into the firing line as Dawson's already going to shoot. Would you not feel that was a mitigating factor?
@es1 do you not think that Dawson has a duty of care to Adams in this situation given that he is aware the player is in the position he is?
@one Adams has inadvertently moved his head into the firing line as Dawson's already going to shoot. Would you not feel that was a mitigating factor?
@es1 do you not think that Dawson has a duty of care to Adams in this situation given that he is aware the player is in the position he is?
It's a fair question, but I'm not sure how much he knows about Adam's position as it all happens so fast.
Is it also relevant? Same could be said for an overhead kick attempt or a keeper punching a ball clear.
one
RefChat Addict
I think you answered your first question with the second one. I also explained this in my previous posts. First thing to consider is safety. Have I said say safety above all yet? If he is aware of the ball position, he is aware of the defender position. He would know there is a good chance he will make contact with Adams. He is taken that risk, in my opinion deliberately risk taking (not that it is relevant). He is not intending to kick Adams. His intention is to kick the ball with the knowledge of the safety risk.
Lets explain this a different way. If this was Adam's leg, its a foul, likely reckless, he would simply kick an opponent's leg recklessly. Many a time it has been given, in many cases a penalty. If the opponent is between you and the ball, even if he gets there a split second before you kick, you simply don't kick though your opponent. You have to take those risks into account . Now because the OP is the opponent's head, the safety factor is much higher (as is with many other fouls) and and easy SFP.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Very interesting situation and a totally valid debate. @one makes some compelling points. But I'm still not going red for for this incident. It reminds me of the discussions we've had about 'is it a high boot or has the player ducked his head'. Where that conversation tends to net out is that if the boot position is unreasonable compared to the norm then it's a foul by that player (either a DFK if contact or IFK if no contact). Whereas if the head position is highly unusual then you consider an IFK against THAT player. In this particular scenario you add into the equation that only one player is actually trying to play the ball (the attacker).
It's easy to say (with hindsight) that the attacker should have see the defender and been more careful. However, a) it's a highly obvious goal scoring opportunity and more importantly b) in the split second when he decides to swing at the ball, the defender is more or less on the ground. The main reason his boot makes contact with the head is that the defender tries to get up right in his path.
I'm with @es1 , DFK but no sanction
It's easy to say (with hindsight) that the attacker should have see the defender and been more careful. However, a) it's a highly obvious goal scoring opportunity and more importantly b) in the split second when he decides to swing at the ball, the defender is more or less on the ground. The main reason his boot makes contact with the head is that the defender tries to get up right in his path.
I'm with @es1 , DFK but no sanction
It's at minimum a yellow for me. I think he has to take more care. He isn't acting without precaution, for me there is no regard to the consequence for his opponent. Its a am having a go at that ball whether his head is there or not.
A refchat first? Mediation?
It's at minimum a yellow for me. I think he has to take more care. He isn't acting without precaution, for me there is no regard to the consequence for his opponent. Its a am having a go at that ball whether his head is there or not.
A refchat first? Mediation?
I can go with yellow, but I think @Russell Jones put it perfectly in his 2nd para. Hes trying to score a goal, it's a frantic and moving situation and I'm not sure how feasible it is to anticipate contact to the head and react to prevent it.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think that can be a dangerous starting point, but I see what you mean. I think a red is very defensible, but can see a caution given that the ball is in a kicking zone where a player doesn't expect a head to be. And to me that warrants no VAR intervention--I don't think this is clearly and obviously a send off.
