Referee gets pushed

[zarathustra]

While I think the challenge should have been a red, I'm not sure that push would constitute a sending off.

However, if the referee felt threatened, or there were verbals to go along with the push then it could fall into the red zone.

 

[afronaut81]

Definite red for the challenge. No. 7 doesn't give the ref time to card before she's pushing the ref earnestly. I see no reason for that behaviour and no ref should be expected to tolerate it.

Football HAS to protect the referee. End of.

 

[jofusref]

red card for the push on the referee

 

[JH]

Disagree. Violent conduct includes "excessive force." Since the acceptable amount of force against an official is zero, that means that any amount of force against the official is excessive. And I think the game has long recognized this.

Excessive force is a huge can of worms, anything can be justified as excessive force - which is why pushing a match official should be explicitly in law.

 

[JH]

Technically, there was nothing violent, brutal or excessive about that small push on the referee. We all would like to be confident in showing the red there, but when you get back in the changing room for your debrief and you tell the assessor that the player violently/brutally pushed you, depending on the assessor, you may look foolish.

Have the FA never released guidelines for this sort of thing? I'd be surprised if they hadn't.

To reiterate: It should be a red, but can it be supported in law?

 

[Nij]

Technically, there was nothing violent, brutal or excessive about that small push on the referee. We all would like to be confident in showing the red there, but when you get back in the changing room for your debrief and you tell the assessor that the player violently/brutally pushed you, depending on the assessor, you may look foolish.

Have the FA never released guidelines for this sort of thing? I'd be surprised if they hadn't.

To reiterate: It should be a red, but can it be supported in law?

As said previously, any force beyond zero used against the referee is excessive, therefore dismissal for UEF for any push is entirely within law.

 

[Ganajin]

I refereed a ladies game in which I was pushed by a player. It was a two handed shove on the chest, not particularly strong but took me completely by surprise. I showed the red card and wondered how much support I would get from the league. They banned her for a year.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I refereed a ladies game in which I was pushed by a player. It was a two handed shove on the chest, not particularly strong but took me completely by surprise. I showed the red card and wondered how much support I would get from the league. They banned her for a year.

I’ve not been pushed’ in a ladies game, I’m not sure how I’d actually react really, I’ve faced a very angry female though a few times but I’m married to her!

 

[one]

Perhaps the laws should be rewritten to say any intentional contact on a referee is a red card,

Do you really want to open the "silhouette" and "natural position" can of worms on the referee contact subject?

For me any physical contact aggression towards the referee is a send off. Most of them should also mean abandoned game. I have had 3 in my career. On immediate abandonment. One abandoned after player reaction to the send off and one the game continued.

Technically, there was nothing violent, brutal or excessive about that small push on the referee.

I'd give you an example. A player puts a finger on another player's chest and pushes slightly (force enough to go through jelly but not enough to go through watermelon ). You'd probably not even caution for it. Same force, same action and same finger but this time on the opponent's eye. This time he would be gone. Context and intent are just as (if not more) important as the actual amount of force used. There are somethings you don't want to see in football, end of, no arguments. For example players spiting at another person is one (which is dealt with correctly). Players pushing the referees, no matter what force, is another one. It has no place in the game.

Unfortunately other things like dissent and diving have been accepted as part of the game and are not punished with as much severity.

 

[afronaut81]

Actions towards referees (violence and spitting) have longer bans than towards players. The FA deliberatley make a distinction so you should too.

If you accept this then next week's ref will be getting shoved whenever a player is looking to get someone carded.

 

[Redster]

Not violent conduct, but an abusive gesture in my book. Perfectly justifiable red, in fact an expected red - even the commentators thought so, bless them

 

[WiisardNic]

I have seen red's for less abuse to a referee.

A) Danny Vukovic being sent off in an A-League grand final and a 15 month suspension (later reduced to 9 I think, which meant missing Australia's last appearance in the Olympics in 2008) for this:

B)

I had this incident in my head thinking it was a red card he got a yellow in it, but there was a big hoo-ha in the media that he didn't get suspended, but the FFA said "Well, it was dealt with on the pitch with a yellow card, we can't do anything about it now"

So, how and why this is not a red card, I will never know.

 

[JamesL]

There is a precedent for this to be a red card I am thinking Di Maria where he grabbed the back of Michael Oliver shirt. That was no more aggressive than this really.
I would have liked to have seen 2 red cards here.

 

[JH]

I'd give you an example. A player puts a finger on another player's chest and pushes slightly (force enough to go through jelly but not enough to go through watermelon ). You'd probably not even caution for it. Same force, same action and same finger but this time on the opponent's eye. This time he would be gone. Context and intent are just as (if not more) important as the actual amount of force used. There are somethings you don't want to see in football, end of, no arguments. For example players spiting at another person is one (which is dealt with correctly). Players pushing the referees, no matter what force, is another one. It has no place in the game.

Your example isn't about force, it is about brutality. Poking a chest is not brutal, poking an eye is.

I agree.

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

Two reds.
The foul is a no brainer, and it's very black and white, touch the referee and its a red card.

 

[Russell Jones]

Two reds.
The foul is a no brainer, and it's very black and white, touch the referee and its a red card.

I agree that this should be two reds. Otherwise you end up on a very slippery slope (with regard to both the tolerance for SFP and for contact with an official). However 'touch the referee and it's a red' I don't believe is enforceable in a blanket kind of way. There's numerous times in games where a player might eg pat a referee on the back, put a hand on a shoulder, run into the ref accidentally etc. Different refs will tolerate more or less of this type of contact but for me it's the (mild) aggression in the push by Van De Donk that takes this into red card territory

 

[WiisardNic]

I agree that this should be two reds. Otherwise you end up on a very slippery slope (with regard to both the tolerance for SFP and for contact with an official). However 'touch the referee and it's a red' I don't believe is enforceable in a blanket kind of way. There's numerous times in games where a player might eg pat a referee on the back, put a hand on a shoulder, run into the ref accidentally etc. Different refs will tolerate more or less of this type of contact but for me it's the (mild) aggression in the push by Van De Donk that takes this into red card territory

Ah, that reminds me of the third example I was going to post, but then couldn't remember it exactly:

This zinger from France:

 

[socal lurker]

I agree that this should be two reds. Otherwise you end up on a very slippery slope (with regard to both the tolerance for SFP and for contact with an official). However 'touch the referee and it's a red' I don't believe is enforceable in a blanket kind of way. There's numerous times in games where a player might eg pat a referee on the back, put a hand on a shoulder, run into the ref accidentally etc. Different refs will tolerate more or less of this type of contact but for me it's the (mild) aggression in the push by Van De Donk that takes this into red card territory

I agree that"touch" the ref is a bit over broad. Recall this one with Bibi Steinhaus?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...Moy7W1kDST&ust=1576948350987539&ictx=3&uact=3


But I would argue that contact with any level of aggression should be a send off every single time. And whether spelled out specifically in the Laws or dictated as an expectation, everyone should know what to expect.

 

[Big Cat]

To protect everyone concerned, the Law should explicitly deter deliberate contact with a MO
Something should be added to the list of sending-off offences
'Dissent by action involving physical contact with a MO' would be a good start

 

[WiisardNic]

To protect everyone concerned, the Law should explicitly deter deliberate contact with a MO
Something should be added to the list of sending-off offences
'Dissent by action involving physical contact with a MO' would be a good start

It's probably just one of those things where they lump it under OFFINABUS