Euros
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
- Status
It does as if you aren't aiming to play the ball any force becomes excessive as you are just intentionally kicking an opponent. There's an argument to say it is VC rather than SFP as not a challenge for the ball.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Dirty Wales got what they deserved. They should have had another red card against them for Keiffer Moore's blatant SFP/VC elbow to the chest of a Danish player right after a goal kick on about 52 mins with the ball nowhere near either of them.. Luckily for him the Dane didn't react to it. Shocked that VAR didn't spot it and bring it to the ref's attention. Moore would definitely have walked.
Using your logic, even negligible contact to the head/face when not challenging for the ball is excessive and therefore a sending off, yet the LotG specifically has a caveat about it.
From that we can infer that non-head/face contact when not challenging for the ball should be judged by careless/reckless/excessive force, and not oversimplifying by just saying that any force is automatically excessive.
While I agree about the foul, it was a correct decision for the RC.
Wilson knew what he was doing, deliberately kicked the player with no intent of trying to play the ball. Classic SFP at this level, but I would not expect a RC at any lower levels.
Calling it VC is a bit contrived imo as, logically, that would also mean that any tactical foul ‘trips’ that don’t aim to play the ball should be VC red cards as the trip/kick would be ‘excessive force’.
Either way, I adjudged it to be a challenge as the ball was well within playing distance, and it clearly wasn’t SFP.
Calling it VC is a bit contrived imo as, logically, that would also mean that any tactical foul ‘trips’ that don’t aim to play the ball should be VC red cards as the trip/kick would be ‘excessive force’.
Either way, I adjudged it to be a challenge as the ball was well within playing distance, and it clearly wasn’t SFP.
The ball was in a different postcode, you really can't think it was playable?
I agree.
Good point.
Yeah that is eaxctly how i feel. I see you are a Supply League observer so thank you for the insight!
The ball was certainly not playable in my opinion.Calling it VC is a bit contrived imo as, logically, that would also mean that any tactical foul ‘trips’ that don’t aim to play the ball should be VC red cards as the trip/kick would be ‘excessive force’.
Either way, I adjudged it to be a challenge as the ball was well within playing distance, and it clearly wasn’t SFP.
On another viewing, maybe the ball wasn’t ‘playable’, but I still think there is a general acceptance that there is a difference between a late, frustrated challenge and VC, it was clearly still a tackle imo. And we can’t factor in to our decision if he ‘had no intention of getting the ball’ as we can’t take intent into account, can we?
Not intent no. But can we argue that his attitude can be taken into consideration as you can be cautioned for adopting an aggressive attitude and sent off for offensive, insulting or abusive language or gestures which all require a degree of subjective interpretation. I understand this is a grey area and like i said, this is probably the lowest grade red card i could get behind. I would probably give a yellow but I do still understand and support the ref’s decision to send off Wilson.
Tbh I don't think he, and his team, have been THAT good tonight. Feel like he let far too much go and missed quite a few free kicks for both teams. I think he's got his name on a semi at best, getting a final is a tournament too early for him imo
The way he dealt with the Eriksen situation would have certainly earned him some brownie points as well
Unfortunately, his VAR team is extremely slow. There's a noticeable difference between Premier League trained VARs and other VARs.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Calling it VC is a bit contrived imo as, logically, that would also mean that any tactical foul ‘trips’ that don’t aim to play the ball should be VC red cards as the trip/kick would be ‘excessive force’.
Either way, I adjudged it to be a challenge as the ball was well within playing distance, and it clearly wasn’t SFP.
I can easily get behind a VC send-off here. Clearly not an attempt to play the ball and a definite "send a message" or "eff you" kick. While we may look at this and say "not enough brutality" or "maybe a challenge for the ball", this type of play is just a purely cynical play borne out of frustration. It's the equivalent of a play in a basketball game where the defender really wipes out a player going to the basket without any real attempt to make a real play. No problems whatsoever with a send off on this, as this shouldn't be a part of the game.
one
RefChat Addict
But this was not that. It was VC disguised as a challenge for the ball. And the referee didn't fall for it. This is one you could see coming.
But I can see why it seems harsh. The speed and intensity was not as much by the time contact was made and the amount of contact was generally justifiable for reckless only. But I am happy to support a red considering the context. The game was done and over by that stage. No chance of a Wales comeback and it's one of those that the referee need to command control to ensure the safety of players. Being proactive rather than reactive. In this instance the referee decides with the strongest message possible and given that it had no impact to the outcome of the game, I am more than happy to accept it.
Put it this way, no chance this tackle would have happened in the the first 10 minutes of the game and if it did, no chance the ref would have sent off for it.
- Status