The Ref Stop

two players on the same team fighting

D

Danwilliams

New Member
Level 7 Referee
Had a game last week under 14s where 2 players on the same team were arguing and 1 of them went to throw a punch luckily he moved out the way the manager and I had to break it up. When it was all calm I spoke to manager he said you are not taking any action are you ref? I said I have got no choice it's violent conduct so I called the player over and gave him a red card he was moaning and the manager had to remove him from the field but I gave no action to the other player

did I do the right thing with sending him of? I know you cant throw a punch to anybody but with a guy on the same team I've never seen that before

ps. please go easy on me I have only been a ref for 8 months I am still learning cheers guys
 
The Ref Stop
@Danwilliams No need to go easy on you mate, you were 100% right to send the player off. Same team or not you cannot be throwing punches at each other. Sounds to me like you handled it well.

**Google Kieron Dyer and Lee Bowyer
 
Yes, 100% correct. Apart from Dyer and Bowyer there are several other examples. Most recently there were 2 Preston players sent off only a few weeks ago (against Sheffield Wednesday I think).

One question - assuming you hadn't taken any action was the manager going to remove the offending player?
 
Assume the other player didn't fight back or retaliate? If not then yes correct decision, you could have carded both depending on what was being said and possible caution for USB for the other player but you will know what was said.

Dyer v Bowyer better fight than Haye v Bellew! :rolleyes:
 
OIREF! said:
Yes, 100% correct. Apart from Dyer and Bowyer there are several other examples. Most recently there were 2 Preston players sent off only a few weeks ago (against Sheffield Wednesday I think).

One question - assuming you hadn't taken any action was the manager going to remove the offending player?
Click to expand...

i think he was going to sub him if i didn't give him the red or took no action would you have let the sub happen? or was the red right thing to do
 
A Freethinker said:
Assume the other player didn't fight back or retaliate? If not then yes correct decision, you could have carded both depending on what was being said and possible caution for USB for the other player but you will know what was said.

Dyer v Bowyer better fight than Haye v Bellew! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

it all happend to fast but no he didn't fight back or retaliate nothing bad was said that i heard so couldnt take action on that
 
Danwilliams said:
i think he was going to sub him if i didn't give him the red or took no action would you have let the sub happen? or was the red right thing to do
Click to expand...
This is a topic of much debate already in this forum, "at what age do you issue your cards". But in short, your actions were 100% correct justifiable by the LOTG. Red card all day long, and to your question if you ignored the kid's age and this was an OA would you have allowed the manager to sub the offending player? Of course not!

Sounds a bit harsh for such age groups, but I've learnt now that this is the best to prevent and cure such behaviour. Neither he nor his manager will think of repeating such actions again. Hopefully lesson well learnt!
 
Just a side issue, If 'reasonable' self defence is enshrined as a defence in British Law, why is it classed as violent conduct on a football field and your team lose your services for the rest of the game (at least)! I know that these things can be sent with mitigation but as we go to codes how can this be reflected???.... As an example, if a player A spat in Player Bs face and Player B promptly lamped him, I think i'd struggle to have a clear and unobstructed view of the incident if I'm being honest!! The Ibrahavich / Mings incident showed what can easily happen at any level and without cameras all that would have got missed, refs on day certainly missed it!!
 
Red card all day long. I would have given a red card at a 9 aside game for VC like that. 7 aside maybe evan then. You can manage bad tackles and other footballing incidents but that needs to be stamped out early and lessons need to be learnt. I do a lot of youth football and I know this is one of the most debated points when it rears its head but punching,spitting offinabus all need to be dealt with at an early age. If a 10 year old punches or attempts to punch another 10 year old I dont think you have any choice but to sanction. At 14 wouldn't even hesitate to use cards.
 
@Danwilliams From the good book itself (LOTG):
Violent conduct
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or
brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a
team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person,
regardless of whether contact is made.

So you called that bit right. I wasnt there so its hard to comment but I'd say in my experience it is rare for.l someone just to throw a punch at someone for no reason at all (even if that reason is not reasonable to functioning members of society). You say that you and the manager had to break it up which suggests there was possibly also some aggression from the other player? Situations such as these its good to get the instigator and the retaliator.
That said I wasnt there and only you know whether the other player was also deserving of disciplinary action too.
Well done on the VC call though - spot on, any age group
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Just a side issue, If 'reasonable' self defence is enshrined as a defence in British Law, why is it classed as violent conduct on a football field
Click to expand...
Because criminal law and the Laws of the Game are two completely different things. You might just as well ask why it is not a criminal offence to wear an undershirt that is a different colour to the main colour of your shirt sleeve while it is against the Laws of the Game.
 
Danwilliams said:
i think he was going to sub him if i didn't give him the red or took no action would you have let the sub happen? or was the red right thing to do
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. That would be a horrendous decision.

Sheffields Finest said:
Just a side issue, If 'reasonable' self defence is enshrined as a defence in British Law, why is it classed as violent conduct on a football field and your team lose your services for the rest of the game (at least)! I know that these things can be sent with mitigation but as we go to codes how can this be reflected???.... As an example, if a player A spat in Player Bs face and Player B promptly lamped him, I think i'd struggle to have a clear and unobstructed view of the incident if I'm being honest!! The Ibrahavich / Mings incident showed what can easily happen at any level and without cameras all that would have got missed, refs on day certainly missed it!!
Click to expand...

It would have to be quite extreme to consider allowing a punch to be considered self defence to the point where you're not sending somebody off - maybe if the player was seriously being bashed.

For instance, I once had a game where a player grabbed another player by the hair, bent him over and was laying into him. The victim didn't punch back, but I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to discuss.
What you're describing isn't self defence - it's retaliation, and I certainly hope you're joking.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Just a side issue, If 'reasonable' self defence is enshrined as a defence in British Law, why is it classed as violent conduct on a football field and your team lose your services for the rest of the game (at least)! I know that these things can be sent with mitigation but as we go to codes how can this be reflected???.... As an example, if a player A spat in Player Bs face and Player B promptly lamped him, I think i'd struggle to have a clear and unobstructed view of the incident if I'm being honest!! The Ibrahavich / Mings incident showed what can easily happen at any level and without cameras all that would have got missed, refs on day certainly missed it!!
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you sometimes say things to be controversial but just to be clear you are saying you would not send Player B off for lamping Player A?
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Just a side issue, If 'reasonable' self defence is enshrined as a defence in British Law, why is it classed as violent conduct on a football field and your team lose your services for the rest of the game (at least)! I know that these things can be sent with mitigation but as we go to codes how can this be reflected???.... As an example, if a player A spat in Player Bs face and Player B promptly lamped him, I think i'd struggle to have a clear and unobstructed view of the incident if I'm being honest!! The Ibrahavich / Mings incident showed what can easily happen at any level and without cameras all that would have got missed, refs on day certainly missed it!!
Click to expand...

Sorry just had to reply to this, long time viewer, new to posting.

As a referee and someone within the Police service I felt I had to clear this up. In its simple terms, violent conduct on the field of play does break British law, and as such, any form of it could be (and should be in my book) reported to the Police. Its simply some sort of unwritten rule that getting whacked at football is acceptable. I have below linked the very definition from the PNLD (Police National Legal Database), which shows anything that happens outside of the sporting rules is not covered by the LOTG. What it means is, you give consent that you may suffer a accidental clash of heads etc...not getting punched in the face. It happened in a game I was involved in last season, where by player A said something to player B, player B head butted him, causing quite a nasty injury, and was sent off for violent conduct, it was reported to the police and player B was found guilty of ABH, and rightly so. Plus Self defence doesn't give you right to retaliation, it is there to defend yourself. Just felt the need to clear this up as it seems to have caused a bit of a stir, and hopefully going forward, officials will know that if they think something needs to be done outside of football then it can be, the only way to get violence out of the game we all love is if its dealt with properly. Some times a 35 day ban and £70 fine is nothing to these people, 180 community service, £600 fine and a criminal record just might.

Lawful sports
This defence covers participation in all lawful sports which might result in injury due to their very nature, including boxing (under the Queensberry rules), soccer, rugby etc. Properly conducted sports are considered to be for the public good and therefore any assaults and batteries which take place during the course of the contest within the rules are lawful and the opposing players are taken to have given their consent to the injuries which they might suffer during the course of the match or contest. Such consent is even to the risk of potentially fatal injuries. Any injury caused by a player acting outside the rules of the sport will be an assault, and criminal proceedings should be considered.
 
I fully agree with the red card. One point that has not been raised is about the restart. I assume that all this happened during a break in play, in which case the restart does not change from whatever it would have been....but it's worth pointing out that under the new Laws, if this fight happened while the ball was in play, the restart is now a DFK or Penalty to the opposition.
 
100% red card. Violent conduct is violent conduct, nowhere in the rules does it specify who its towards
 
Pedant Alert!!

QuaverRef said:
nowhere in the rules does it specify who its towards
Click to expand...
Law 12?
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

So, someone swinging his arms around in the middle of the pitch with no one around him and hitting thin air is not committing violent conduct. He's either mad as a hatter or swatting away a bee. At least the laws allow us the distinguish this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top