A&H

Villa v Middlesborough - red card rescinded

RustyRef said:
I used the sit on hearings, and if the referee had reported the sending off incorrectly you cannot find the player guilty. If he is appealing a charge of SFP, and the offence is actually VC, you have to find him cleared of the offence if it becomes clear he had committed VC but not SFP.

Its the same if the referee's report uses incorrect terms. For example, if he reports that the player was sent off for SFP for recklessly challenging an opponent that has to be overturned as a reckless challenge is a caution not a red card.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. Kind of. Just think here if the club have asked for a review then they should also be liable to further punishment if someone says Ref was wrong to sfp but yes to vc. But it is what it is.
 
The Referee Store
You would expect a ref at that level to have some kind of discipline official (can't think of wording) who they would run these things by first before submitting report?
 
TopCat said:
You would expect a ref at that level to have some kind of discipline official (can't think of wording) who they would run these things by first before submitting report?
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily saying what happened. For an appeal to be successful though it needs to be shown that the referee has made a clear and obvious error, and I don't really see how anyone can say it was an error to send off for that challenge, let alone a clear and obvious one. Which just makes me wonder if some kind of technicality was the reason.

Referees at L3 and above just enter the sending off details onto MOAS as soon as possible over the game.
 
Red for me- Lansbury is making no attempt to play the ball, he knows exactly what he is doing. He is paying no regard to the players safety at all. It's as cynical as it can get .
 
Paul March said:
He is paying no regard to the players safety at all.
Click to expand...
By lotg definition that is a caution ;)

"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to,
or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned."
 
I suspect Mike Jones' decision last weekend not to issue red for the high boot was that he's met the FA panel before, when Delap's red card was rescinded (from 0:45):

As to VC or SFP, Aguero was retrospectively charged with VC for this:


(NB Reid put his hands to his head but went off holding his throat...) Are we really saying that the interpretation of "challenging for the ball" could mean the FA would say that the way the referee described it was wrong so we're allowing the appeal? I know the FA can be daft, but not that daft surely.

Does it make a difference that it was use of an elbow (though the elbow missed) rather than (in the Lansbury case) a cynical kick from behind "while (not) challenging for the ball"? (Don't forget the current phrasing of the law started when any tackle from behind was made SFP as inherently dangerous.) Perhaps the obvious distinction (SFP/VC) should be the same as a trip for DOGSO in the penalty area - was there a realistic chance of playing the ball? - yes, yellow; no, red.

The VC wording of course allows for an attempt to use excessive force or brutality - but I really don't understand the concept of "excessive force while not challenging for the ball". Presumably the same action (as in the Lansbury case) could be SFP if the opponent had the ball, but VC if perpetrated on an opponent running off the ball hoping for a pass. For all the tinkering, the wording is still silly, and a lot derives from the "excessive force" wording.

VC seems to include an attempt to use excessive force, but "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". So an attempted head butt or an attempted punch is VC, but you can deliberately strike someone with negligible force and that's not VC.
 
Beat me to it Capn but lotg extract for reference:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences
against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless,
reckless or using excessive force:
• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip
If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or
penalty kick
 
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

For VC, needs excessive force when not challenging.

Was the trip excessive?
What would have changed if the trip was replaced with a good old fashioned hack?
 
lincs22 said:
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

For VC, needs excessive force when not challenging.

Was the trip excessive?
What would have changed if the trip was replaced with a good old fashioned hack?
Click to expand...


Sorry for real? Strikes or attempts to strike, kicks or attempts to kick.
In your theroy, its ok to strike as long as its not excessive?
How does one measure the excessivness of a punch or kick?
They dont, its VC. This clip is a kick. A kick, or attempts to kick, is VC
There is no tackle being made here, no attempt to play ball,
A trip is a leg being put out to erm trip
This clip, is a kick.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Sorry for real? Strikes or attempts to strike, kicks or attempts to kick.
In your theroy, its ok to strike as long as its not excessive?
How does one measure the excessivness of a punch or kick?
They dont, its VC. This clip is a kick. A kick, or attempts to kick, is VC
There is no tackle being made here, no attempt to play ball,
A trip is a leg being put out to erm trip
This clip, is a kick.
Click to expand...
Surely we judge the excessiveness of a kick when deciding on serious foul play as opposed to just a foul?
 
TopCat said:
Surely we judge the excessiveness of a kick when deciding on serious foul play as opposed to just a foul?
Click to expand...


Not the same. If. Strikes or attempts to strike, kicks or attempts to kick, was based on the excessive force used then nobody would ever be sent off for misding with a punch as no harm was done. Yoh cant say, hey its a punch bit it was a soft punch to the stomach, as opposed to a punch to the nose which spouted blood. This clip, is a kick. A kick which makes contact. However as ever, if folk are happy with their take on it, thats all that matters
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Not the same. If. Strikes or attempts to strike, kicks or attempts to kick, was based on the excessive force used then nobody would ever be sent off for misding with a punch as no harm was done. Yoh cant say, hey its a punch bit it was a soft punch to the stomach, as opposed to a punch to the nose which spouted blood. This clip, is a kick. A kick which makes contact. However as ever, if folk are happy with their take on it, thats all that matters
Click to expand...
The laws specifically covers this. A punch or attempt to punch falls into the brutality category and immediately meets the violent conduct criteria.

Brutality
An act which is savage, ruthless or deliberately violent

The terms strike and or kicks are both very broad and subjective and therefore can be judged on the force used. For example a player could easily strike an opponent in a careless manner, its all circumstantial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top