The Ref Stop

Striking YC/RC?

SydTheAussieRef

SydTheAussieRef

Level 4 Ref (youth). Just starting out.
So we had a coaching night recently where it was discussed that striking can be done in a careless, reckless or EF manner... Resulting in the usual Nothing/YC/RC.
Is that in challenging for the ball??
I.e. You strike an opponent with your arm etc whilst jumping for a header...
However is it that any striking off the ball or in not challenging is a RC?
Thanks.
 
The Ref Stop
The way I handle it when the ball is out of play is still:
  • careless: public warning or quiet word, depending on the severity
  • reckless: caution for unsporting behaviour
  • excessive force: send-off for violent conduct.
However, the bar for what constitutes excessive force when the ball is out of play is very low. I definitely can't envisage any striking incidents while the ball is out of play that wouldn't result in a caution at the very least - and even then they'd be very rare. 99% of the time I'd probably be sending off the player for violent conduct.

For pushing, I can definitely think of instances which would only be careless or reckless when the ball is out of play. However, the new Laws now mandate that any non-trivial contact to the face or neck (for offences that would normally incur a DFK when the ball was in play) must now be sanctioned as violent conduct. I was doing that all along anyway.
 
Last edited:
Padfoot said:
What possible reason is there for striking an opponent when the ball is out of play?
Click to expand...

I can't think of any. The only time I think that striking with the ball out of play could be a caution is when there is a mass confrontation and an opponent is nudged out of the way with the arm. However, I'd say this is probably more likely to be considered pushing.
 
shorty said:
I can't think of any. The only time I think that striking with the ball out of play could be a caution is when there is a mass confrontation and an opponent is nudged out of the way with the arm. However, I'd say this is probably more likely to be considered pushing.
Click to expand...

So then, any force would be excessive....?
 
So around 50 seconds in this video.
What colour if any is the card?
If I saw this incident for me its red.
 
Padfoot said:
What possible reason is there for striking an opponent when the ball is out of play?
Click to expand...
The only reason I can think of is if the ball is only just out of play and two players who were challenging for it as it went out "strike" each other as part of their general momentum. But it's an edge case that relies you you have a very good idea of when the ball actually left play.
 
Striking off the ball? Can still be USB, not VC, if little force is used. Kicking the ball at an opponent but not with a lot of force (more antagonistically), that sort of thing.
And yes, too many referees don't realise that striking is a CRUEF offence and believe it's a red card offence. I've given free kicks only for careless striking before.

Padfoot said:
What possible reason is there for striking an opponent when the ball is out of play?
Click to expand...
so I presume every time 2 players square up to each other and start pushing it's a red card? or grabs their shirt or chest bumps them it's a red card?
 
Last edited:
SydTheAussieRef said:
So around 50 seconds in this video.
What colour if any is the card?
If I saw this incident for me its red.
Click to expand...

Technically, I'd be more inclined to agree with the commentators that it's a push rather than a strike. Either way, I'd consider that to be excessive force prior to the 2016/17 Laws.

In the 2016/17 Laws, there is no choice in the matter - all deliberate contact to the head or face with the hand or arm (that would be an offence punishable by a direct free kick if the ball was in play) must be considered to be excessive force and hence violent conduct.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.
Click to expand...

I know it technically says striking there, but given the ambiguity and contradictions in the new Laws, I tend to believe it would apply for any deliberate contact made with the face or head when not challenging for the ball (that would normally result in a DFK).

J-K said:
And a yellow for simulation?
Click to expand...

Looks like a hard sell, but if the defender got up straight away as soon as the card came out, making a miraculous recovery, I'd certainly be inclined to take that action. And that's why I'm not refereeing in the national leagues.

CapnBloodbeard said:
Padfoot said:
What possible reason is there for striking an opponent when the ball is out of play?
Click to expand...
so I presume every time 2 players square up to each other and start pushing it's a red card? or grabs their shirt or chest bumps them it's a red card?
Click to expand...

I'm with CapnBloodbeard on this one. Every time there is deliberate contact when the ball out of play, it needs to be dealt with firmly. However, while technically right by law, you would be very far from the consensus if you considered all contact when the ball is out of play to rise to the level of excessive force and hence require a send-off for violent conduct.
 
Last edited:
shorty said:
In the 2016/17 Laws, there is no choice in the matter - all deliberate contact to the head or face with the hand or arm must be considered to be excessive force and hence violent conduct.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. As the quote you included states quite clearly, it is not violent conduct if the force used is negligible.
 
Peter Grove said:
Not necessarily. As the quote you included states quite clearly, it is not violent conduct if the force used is negligible.
Click to expand...

Define negligible when talking about striking someone to the head or face?

There is no legitimate reason for a player to deliberately strike an opponent to the head or face.....
 
Padfoot said:
Define negligible when talking about striking someone to the head or face?

There is no legitimate reason for a player to deliberately strike an opponent to the head or face.....
Click to expand...
I'm not a member of the IFAB so it's not up to me to define it and I'm not even saying I agree with it, I'm just pointing out that the law as written, does not say that every time a player deliberately strikes an opponent in the head or face with the hand or arm, it must be considered as violent conduct. In fact, the law specifically and quite clearly states that there is an exception to this, which is when the force used is negligible.

I have to say that I do find the scenario highly unlikely but that wasn't the point at issue,
 
Peter Grove said:
I'm not a member of the IFAB so it's not up to me to define it and I'm not even saying I agree with it, I'm just pointing out that the law as written, does not say that every time a player deliberately strikes an opponent in the head or face with the hand or arm, it must be considered as violent conduct. In fact, the law specifically and quite clearly states that there is an exception to this, which is when the force used is negligible.

I have to say that I do find the scenario highly unlikely but that wasn't the point at issue,
Click to expand...

Massive cop out answer.....

As a referee, expected to officiate to these laws, someone has to define it......if the law makers can't or won't, then it becomes a farce, because it's left up to each individual referee to come up with their own definition.

And we all know how badly wrong things can when you leave decisions to large groups of people......
 
Padfoot said:
Massive cop out answer.....

As a referee, expected to officiate to these laws, someone has to define it......if the law makers can't or won't, then it becomes a farce, because it's left up to each individual referee to come up with their own definition.

And we all know how badly wrong things can when you leave decisions to large groups of people......
Click to expand...
It's no more or less 'badly defined' than 100 other things in the Laws. Negligible is as easy or difficult to understand or define as careless / reckless etc. And, judging from your views on another thread, where IFAB DO go the extra mile and more tightly define things by issuing a Q&A, you decide to ignore it anyway ;)
 
Russell Jones said:
It's no more or less 'badly defined' than 100 other things in the Laws. Negligible is as easy or difficult to understand or define as careless / reckless etc. And, judging from your views on another thread, where IFAB DO go the extra mile and more tightly define things by issuing a Q&A, you decide to ignore it anyway ;)
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you in that there are many poorly defined expressions in the LOTG. However, i asked @Peter Grove for his definition of "negligible" and he copped out by hiding behind IFAB......

But that did still illustrate my point somewhat.....if IFAB don't define these things it falls to the individual referee to do so in the heat of the game......and that will just lead to inconsistency not just amongst referees, but possibly by the same ref in different games........because many things factor into our decision making process that can mean we give different decisions for the same thing on a game by game basis.......especially where the wording is so woolly from IFAB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top