RefSix

‘Head tackle’

#3
I think SFP is easily justified.
I think VC is also justifiable. That is not a normal challenge for the ball. I think you can opine that it is not a challenge for the ball but a deliberate act of violence against another player (stretch though).

I note the actions of the AR - WTF is he doing signalling a throw?
Following the ref presumably but that doesn't cover the team in glory!
 

Nij

Active Member
#4
It's not even a head tackle. He leads the dive with his hands and arms, then rolls so that contact is made by the shoulders and upper back.
There's no legitimate likelihood to play the ball there, it's not even challenging for the ball. VC dismissal as soon as I know the player's number.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#7
Reckless for me but i can live with SFP.

What I don't understand is (or I think i do) why the green player covers his face with both hands. If you hurt your foot, it is just not natural to cover your face with both hands.
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
#8
Reckless for me but i can live with SFP.

What I don't understand is (or I think i do) why the green player covers his face with both hands. If you hurt your foot, it is just not natural to cover your face with both hands.
He does land on his face straight after the foul
 
#13
I think in assistants defence its that unusual to see that you need to give yourself a bit of thinking time.

I wouldn't mind betting that the red team actually think they should have been awarded a free kick for the incident.

Anyone know what decision was given, was it just a throw inn ?
 

alexv

RefChat Addict
#16
I remember seeing a clip where a defender dived in with this head to make a tackle (actually his head rather than his body like in this clip) and the referee correctly gave a penalty and a yellow card to the defender
 
#19
Personally I think it was a stupid attempt to head the ball, rather than a serious attempt to foul the other player, however the result would be the same - "Take an early bath, son"
 
Top