one
RefChat Addict
Let me know when you are reffing my game so I make sure to make a decent fight out of it if someone pulls my shirtI'd decide on the colour of the card after watching how the ensuing fight pans out
Let me know when you are reffing my game so I make sure to make a decent fight out of it if someone pulls my shirtI'd decide on the colour of the card after watching how the ensuing fight pans out
I think his point is in that situation he doesn't just want to send off the retaliator.Let me know when you are reffing my game so I make sure to make a decent fight out of it if someone pulls my shirt
Not sure what my point was, but can't see shirt strangulation being graciously accepted on a Sunday morning. Quite likely, two dismissals will followI think his point is in that situation he doesn't just want to send off the retaliator.
Not sure what my point was, but can't see shirt strangulation being graciously accepted on a Sunday morning. Quite likely, two dismissals will follow
Equally, could leave the Ref in a sticky spot if that happened in front of some kid's mum
Aggravated USB, when the ball is not within playing distance needs to made a dismissible offence (which it's not at the moment, by virtue of TV precedent, rather than Law). Otherwise we end up with Aggravated VC
Not sure what my point was, but can't see shirt strangulation being graciously accepted on a Sunday morning. Quite likely, two dismissals will follow
Equally, could leave the Ref in a sticky spot if that happened in front of some kid's mum
Aggravated USB, when the ball is not within playing distance needs to made a dismissible offence (which it's not at the moment, by virtue of TV precedent, rather than Law). Otherwise we end up with Aggravated VC
I think I get his point more than he does. You can't just blanketly (I know Kes, that's not a word) say a shirt pull like that is a yellow or is a red. Context matters.I think his point is in that situation he doesn't just want to send off the retaliator.
I was thinking more along the lines of that type of play is not going to be as graciously accepted on a Sunday morning on hackney marshes, and a melee of some description is almost certain to ensueI think I get his point more than he does. You can't just blanketly (I know Kes, that's not a word) say a shirt pull like that is a yellow or is a red. Context matters.
In the context of the one we saw it in I won't send off. But let's say it was in clear retaliation of the offender being on the receiving end of a hard physical tackle from the offended seconds earlier (the shirt pull had nothing to do with defending an attack), then for me that would very likely be an act of violent conduct.
For me that on its own doesn't justify a send off. There are many yellow card tackles/pushes/trips... which are not graciously accepted on a Sunday morning and cause a melee. That won't mean I would change them to a red.I was thinking more along the lines of that type of play is not going to be as graciously accepted on a Sunday morning on hackney marshes, and a melee of some description is almost certain to ensue
Yes, but I mean what happens in the melee. Not because it caused one!!For me that on its own doesn't justify a send off. There are many yellow card tackles/pushes/trips... which are not graciously accepted on a Sunday morning and cause a melee. That won't mean I would change them to a red.
I think the expectation is that the punched person is unlikely to just take the punch and is likely to also retaliate in some way.I can't think of any context where it's good refereeing to upgrade a foul from yellow to red card because the other party has turned round and punched them? Punish a player more harshly because their opponent can't control themselves? What's the thinking behind that?
Nobody said thatI can't think of any context where it's good refereeing to upgrade a foul from yellow to red card because the other party has turned round and punched them? Punish a player more harshly because their opponent can't control themselves? What's the thinking behind that?
There's lots we could justify doing according to the book which would lead to a wonky observationBut I think you can easily use "excessive force" under both SFP or VC to justify a send off here. It's one thing to pull someone's shirt near the waistline and not have it be excessive or endangering player safety. It's completely differen to be at speed and have someone yank your shirt at the neckline. There's much more danger for injury in that situation.
I don't understand the line of reasoning that there isn't any justification in the Laws to ever make this kind of action a sendoff. "Endangering safety" and "excessive force" don't have hard and fast definitions.
I want it to be a red card, and as I've said on here before I am harsh on challenges when there is zero attempt for the ball, like the Wales sending off, because that unnecessary contact is potentially dangerous. Think it is a push to say there is any danger here though, and even I with my tougher stance than many are finding it impossible to say a shirt pull is worthy of a red.
I saw this earlier and had to chuckle.
View attachment 5051
I think the expectation is that the punched person is unlikely to just take the punch and is likely to also retaliate in some way.
You have the clear red, clear yellows, clear no cards and the in betweens. It is the in betweens that we are mostly talking about.I can't think of any context where it's good refereeing to upgrade a foul from yellow to red card because the other party has turned round and punched them? Punish a player more harshly because their opponent can't control themselves? What's the thinking behind that?
I understand the concept - what I'm telling you is that I think it's weak refereeing. You're allowing the punishment to be changed by a poor response to it, which is nothing to do with the decision regarding what the correct punishment was in the first place.
Yes, some cards are orange and some like your example are....cream? And in those cases I understand that you can make a case either way and you can use to context of that match up until that point to guide that decision. But once you've made that decision and particularly once you've signalled it (in your case by not immediately stopping and going for a card), it's both bad practice and terrible optics to allow yourself to be pushed to upgrade it because an opponent overracted.
Far from trying to promote this as an approach, I think it's a failing that we should be trying to actively avoid where possible.
maybe in hindsight knowing what was to come I should have adjusted the correct call and made it one that would provoke a different reaction.
or maybe not
Nope. Learning to deal with people's responses is part of refereeing. Learning to bend the rules to give yourself an easy ride isn't.