A&H

Nani Red Card

Unfortunately, the IRP is pretty much a farce. They do a great job of making sure players continue to play and do next to nothing to support MLS referees.

I'm not saying MLS referees are outstanding, but they are not nearly as bad as the IRP would lead you to believe.

As for the foul, I'll continue to say it. It's a send-off. It's a locked leg making contact above the ankle of the plant leg with Nani's leg at a downward angle so more of his weight is behind the action. It endangers the safety of the opponent. I get the force is not that excessive, but the angle of the leg and the locked nature of the leg at contact means the force will be greater than if the player is sliding along the ground. people can debate the amount of speed all they want, but this tackle needs to be SFP. If this type of tackle isn't SFP, then what is the bar?
I'm with you. A tackle does not need to have excessive force to be SFP.
A players safety can be endangered without UEF. So as I say agree, perhaps the force used wasn't excessive, however the action endangered his opponents safety and IMO merits a send off.
 
The Referee Store
I'm with you. A tackle does not need to have excessive force to be SFP.
A players safety can be endangered without UEF. So as I say agree, perhaps the force used wasn't excessive, however the action endangered his opponents safety and IMO merits a send off.
I had this very debate with a tutor recently. His position was that very SFP challenge involved excessive force which I disagreed with, pointing out it’s not the only factor. Risk is as important
 
I had this very debate with a tutor recently. His position was that very SFP challenge involved excessive force which I disagreed with, pointing out it’s not the only factor. Risk is as important
Did you suggest he read the definition and pay particular attention to the word or between endangers safety OR UEF?
 
Did you suggest he read the definition and pay particular attention to the word or between endangers safety OR UEF?
I 100% agree with you on this. The LoTG clearly state the following: "A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play".

Granted it might not be excessive, that's up for debate, but it is certainly dangerous
 
Did you suggest he read the definition and pay particular attention to the word or between endangers safety OR UEF?
Got talked over (volume wise) instead. Shame really as it detracted from what could have been a very good session.
 
I think the fact it was from the side is the reason they decided to rescind the red card. People get hung up on the fact that this type of challenge is worse if from behind and not so serious from the side or from the front, especially if only with one foot. I'm always wary when a player's first touch means the ball runs away so he lunges in to the challenge, because the nature of it means he's likely to be out of control. He's stretching and is therefore more likely to be off the ground. This will always risk serious injury to the opponent and must be dealt with seriously unless he's well away from the opponent. As soon as he makes contact like this it has to be Serious foul play. He caught the opponent on his shin / above the ankle while off the ground. When the player has his foot planted that's potentially not ending well.

Rescinding the red card means they believe this type of challenge is OK. The trouble is, people believe that - as you can see Nani repeating in the clip - "I got the ball!" means you can absolutely clatter the opponent and it's a fair challenge. I'd be interested to know Nani's viewpoint had he been on the receiving end of the challenge - would he have thought it was a fair challenge then? Would his team mates have been crowding the referee to protest the red card in the same way?

I sent a player off for a very similar challenge, although a bit more brutal because his right foot took the ball while his left took the player's ankle. I was five yards from the incident and I have no doubt that he meant to hurt the opponent. After the game I almost sent the opposing goalkeeper off because he thought the red card was harsh because the opponent who put their player in hospital had played the ball at the same time as he caught the opponent and nothing I could say would persuade him otherwise. And he was also a Referee!
 
I think the fact it was from the side is the reason they decided to rescind the red card. People get hung up on the fact that this type of challenge is worse if from behind and not so serious from the side or from the front, especially if only with one foot. I'm always wary when a player's first touch means the ball runs away so he lunges in to the challenge, because the nature of it means he's likely to be out of control. He's stretching and is therefore more likely to be off the ground. This will always risk serious injury to the opponent and must be dealt with seriously unless he's well away from the opponent. As soon as he makes contact like this it has to be Serious foul play. He caught the opponent on his shin / above the ankle while off the ground. When the player has his foot planted that's potentially not ending well.

Rescinding the red card means they believe this type of challenge is OK. The trouble is, people believe that - as you can see Nani repeating in the clip - "I got the ball!" means you can absolutely clatter the opponent and it's a fair challenge. I'd be interested to know Nani's viewpoint had he been on the receiving end of the challenge - would he have thought it was a fair challenge then? Would his team mates have been crowding the referee to protest the red card in the same way?

I sent a player off for a very similar challenge, although a bit more brutal because his right foot took the ball while his left took the player's ankle. I was five yards from the incident and I have no doubt that he meant to hurt the opponent. After the game I almost sent the opposing goalkeeper off because he thought the red card was harsh because the opponent who put their player in hospital had played the ball at the same time as he caught the opponent and nothing I could say would persuade him otherwise. And he was also a Referee!
What doesn't help here is the fouled players reaction. On multiple occasions he acknowledges Nani as if to say I'm okay, apology accepted.
He certainly isn't acting in a way that suggests he feels he has been on the receiving end of an SFP challenge. I wonder if that comes into the thinking as well?
 
Normally, I'm the first person to say "still photos don't tell the full story". It may not here as well. But I have a hard time looking at this still photo at the point of contact and seeing how the sanction can be anything other than SFP. Angle of the locked leg, point of contact above the ankle, rest of his body off the ground - it's a send-off.

Screenshot_20201105-051434.jpg
 
Normally, I'm the first person to say "still photos don't tell the full story". It may not here as well. But I have a hard time looking at this still photo at the point of contact and seeing how the sanction can be anything other than SFP. Angle of the locked leg, point of contact above the ankle, rest of his body off the ground - it's a send-off.

View attachment 4675
Freeze-frames again!
I've read through the comments above and can cope with all of them, but this preoccupation (by VAR et al) with slow motion and frames is insane...
 
Rescinding the red card means they believe this type of challenge is OK.
That's a bit of an overstatement--a cautionable offense is not "OK."

I agree that this should be a red. But it doesn't seem completely inconsistent with what seems to be a gradually softening of the SFP standard.
 
The more I look at this the more red it gets, and I'm starting to think there is an element of intent in there. The way the leg extends after playing the ball just doesn't feel right.

The other thing I wonder is whether the referee is inexperienced at that level, as his body language isn't great and he almost looks a bit frightened at times. No way can the blue 11 be allowed to behave like that without sanction.
 
The more I look at this the more red it gets, and I'm starting to think there is an element of intent in there. The way the leg extends after playing the ball just doesn't feel right.

The other thing I wonder is whether the referee is inexperienced at that level, as his body language isn't great and he almost looks a bit frightened at times. No way can the blue 11 be allowed to behave like that without sanction.
It’s the commentators reaction that annoyed me. How can people that don’t know what they’re talking about be allowed to sit in front of a microphone broadcasting to millions and question a referees integrity. Shocking
 
That's a bit of an overstatement--a cautionable offense is not "OK."

I agree that this should be a red. But it doesn't seem completely inconsistent with what seems to be a gradually softening of the SFP standard.
I meant not a red card offence rather than not even a foul - I'm not sure if the red was downgraded to yellow, but that's unimportant. The challenge was totally unacceptable and should be treated as such. Rescinding a red card for this shows they don't agree it should be red. I was told when I was trained that if a foul makes you wince it's probably a red card. This one ticked that box.

When pundits berate a referee for penalising this they feed the belief that it's not a foul as long as you touch the ball first. This decision sort of backs that up, because if he hadn't played the ball he'd have been sent off. Because he touched the ball he gets away with a yellow at most. That's not ok.

I'm not seeing a gradual softening of the SFP standard. The complaint we keep hearing from players / pundits and other "experts" is that the game is being sterilised by banning tackling. The people who make this type of comment are people like Graeme Souness who made a living out of this sort of challenge. In Britain this would have been tolerated in the past and that has meant that Referees who penalise it properly get grief.

I sent a player for a foul from the front where his foot bounced off the ball and went right through the opponent's shin pad, leaving him with a gashed leg. He and his team refused to accept a red card was justified because he'd played the ball. I ended up reporting him for continuing misconduct, failure to leave the field and the vicinity and misconduct after the game. I also reported the club for failure to control players during the game, failure to ensure he left the vicinity and failure to control players after the game. A local referee plays for the team and was one of the worst offenders so ended up being banned for several weeks. This came about because they "knew" this type of challenge was ok because "experts" told them it was. Three days later Mark Noble was sent off for West Ham for an identical challenge. I think the experts said it was harsh because he clearly played the ball!
 
I also think it is a RC. But I'm open to see it differently. The fact that #08COL made a big step and did not have his foot planted there for long could be an argument.
I think this is similiar:
(Umtiti vs. Colombia).

And this one is probably a clearer RC, the force is higher:
(v.Dijk vs. Mertens)
 
Last edited:
I meant not a red card offence rather than not even a foul - I'm not sure if the red was downgraded to yellow, but that's unimportant. The challenge was totally unacceptable and should be treated as such. Rescinding a red card for this shows they don't agree it should be red. I was told when I was trained that if a foul makes you wince it's probably a red card. This one ticked that box.

When pundits berate a referee for penalising this they feed the belief that it's not a foul as long as you touch the ball first. This decision sort of backs that up, because if he hadn't played the ball he'd have been sent off. Because he touched the ball he gets away with a yellow at most. That's not ok.

I'm not seeing a gradual softening of the SFP standard. The complaint we keep hearing from players / pundits and other "experts" is that the game is being sterilised by banning tackling. The people who make this type of comment are people like Graeme Souness who made a living out of this sort of challenge. In Britain this would have been tolerated in the past and that has meant that Referees who penalise it properly get grief.

I sent a player for a foul from the front where his foot bounced off the ball and went right through the opponent's shin pad, leaving him with a gashed leg. He and his team refused to accept a red card was justified because he'd played the ball. I ended up reporting him for continuing misconduct, failure to leave the field and the vicinity and misconduct after the game. I also reported the club for failure to control players during the game, failure to ensure he left the vicinity and failure to control players after the game. A local referee plays for the team and was one of the worst offenders so ended up being banned for several weeks. This came about because they "knew" this type of challenge was ok because "experts" told them it was. Three days later Mark Noble was sent off for West Ham for an identical challenge. I think the experts said it was harsh because he clearly played the ball!

As I usually do when I hear a studio analyst or broadcaster whine about this, I go back to the Laws of the Game app to see if "it's not a foul if the player gets the ball as part of the challenge" has been added to the verbiage of Law 12.

Still not in the Laws that "he got the ball" negates a foul . . .
 
Freeze-frames again!
I've read through the comments above and can cope with all of them, but this preoccupation (by VAR et al) with slow motion and frames is insane...

Normally, I agree with you about still frames. This is why I qualified my comment.

In this case, the still frame does do it justice. When a player comes in at this angle, most (if not all) of his body weight is going to be part of the energy of the challenge. This challenge is also on a planted leg instead of a leg that's up in the air as part of a follow-through. Finally, it's above the ankle. This is easily a possible leg-breaking challenge. The three items in isolation don't necessarily result in a send-off on their own. Put all three of them into the same challenge, and this endangers the player's safety.

I can assure you that if I was refereeing and saw this on replay, I'd be disappointed if I didn't send the player off.
 
Normally, I agree with you about still frames. This is why I qualified my comment.

In this case, the still frame does do it justice. When a player comes in at this angle, most (if not all) of his body weight is going to be part of the energy of the challenge. This challenge is also on a planted leg instead of a leg that's up in the air as part of a follow-through. Finally, it's above the ankle. This is easily a possible leg-breaking challenge. The three items in isolation don't necessarily result in a send-off on their own. Put all three of them into the same challenge, and this endangers the player's safety.

I can assure you that if I was refereeing and saw this on replay, I'd be disappointed if I didn't send the player off.
Response acknowledged. Remember the Kompany freeze-frame from the World Cup. Probably the best example of how misleading the use of 'photographs' is
Anyway, the VAR dossier seemed to forbid the use of slow motion and frames for this type of incident. No surprise therefore, to see them making it up. It's just plain stupid imo

The thing with this incident, is I see comments like... 'the more I look at this' etc.
We don't get days on end to analyse replays and damning inappropriate evidence. The fact the commentators didn't know what the review was for, is fairly telling (I'm assuming they are better than Fletch and MacManaman!). If it doesn't smell like SFP, if doesn't have that instant signature of SFP and if the players don't detect anything majorly wrong, it probably ain't endangering anyone or using excessive force. On these occasions, replays are likely to be misleading because that real-time signature (for which you need to 'be there at the time') of SFP was probably absent
 
Last edited:
Response acknowledged. Remember the Kompany freeze-frame from the World Cup. Probably the best example of how misleading the use of 'photographs' is
Anyway, the VAR dossier seemed to forbid the use of slow motion and frames for this type of incident. No surprise therefore, to see them making it up. It's just plain stupid imo

The thing with this incident, is I see comments like... 'the more I look at this' etc.
We don't get days on end to analyse replays and damning inappropriate evidence. The fact the commentators didn't know what the review was for, is fairly telling (I'm assuming they are better than Fletch and MacManaman!). If it doesn't smell like SFP, if doesn't have that instant signature of SFP and if the players don't detect anything majorly wrong, it probably ain't endangering anyone or using excessive force. On these occasions, replays are likely to be misleading because that real-time signature (for which you need to 'be there at the time') of SFP was probably absent
It's entirely allowed to use a freeze frame to determine point of contact and other relevant details such as in this case, the fact the other player's foot is planted. It's just important that full-speed replays are used for judging the force of contact and similar details like that. It's the attempt to do all of the above with a single freeze-frame or slow-mo that causes problems.
 
Response acknowledged. Remember the Kompany freeze-frame from the World Cup. Probably the best example of how misleading the use of 'photographs' is
Anyway, the VAR dossier seemed to forbid the use of slow motion and frames for this type of incident. No surprise therefore, to see them making it up. It's just plain stupid imo

The thing with this incident, is I see comments like... 'the more I look at this' etc.
We don't get days on end to analyse replays and damning inappropriate evidence. The fact the commentators didn't know what the review was for, is fairly telling (I'm assuming they are better than Fletch and MacManaman!). If it doesn't smell like SFP, if doesn't have that instant signature of SFP and if the players don't detect anything majorly wrong, it probably ain't endangering anyone or using excessive force. On these occasions, replays are likely to be misleading because that real-time signature (for which you need to 'be there at the time') of SFP was probably absent
Completely fair comments, as all of yours have been in this discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with your line of reasoning. In my opinion, I think this type of challenge is one where VAR can really provide some value. I watched the play first on my computer, then on my TV (admittedly, not a very big screen). The challenge was definitely "orange" at full speed, where red or yellow both have justification. The replays, for me, turned me to supporting a send-off.

From my seat in the stands, this is the type of play where VAR can have real value. Maybe the referee didn't have a great angle. Maybe the challenge doesn't look all that bad in real time. But if you have the technology to look at it again, I see the items that lead me to believe it's a red card. For me (and this is again my opinion), if you can see the elements of this challenge in a video review, I think you can support a send-off.

I'd MUCH rather see VAR used to get these types of challenges out of the game than spending 3-4 minutes determining if someone's big toenail or arm hair is a millimeter offside. I can live with a tight offside-no offside call. What I do want to see is a tackle like this get out of the game because it does have the potential to be a season-ender.

EDIT - I did review the VAR protocols in my IFAB app. What is in the protocol is as follows: "(I)n general, slow motion replays should only be used for facts . . . e.g. point of contact for physical offences and handball . . ." So while slow motion shouldn't be used to judge the seriousness or speed of a challenge, it can be used to review point of contact. Now I don't know if you are supposed to (by Law) use slow motion to see whether a leg was locked or the downward angle of the challenge, but I'd have a hard time separating that from the point of contact if I was reviewing the play for the point of contact. So as a VAR, I could use slow motion to see that the point of contact was definitely above the ankle. I'm sure I would then see the locked leg and how the force was downward instead of horizontal. That would probably send the alarm bells ringing in my head about this becoming a SFP send-off.

I appreciate the reasoned and fair discussion on this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top