A&H

West Ham vs Chelsea

It’s a discussion I’ve just had with an ex-Bundesliga referee and one of the most respected voices in German refereeing, he said he saw it as this:

“Even though fouls are not about intent, and the possible personal punishment is mainly based on the (visible) result of the action, and less on the (only presumed) intention: an accident has obviously happened here. The ball was clearly kicked away, the action only applies to the ball, Balbuena’s leg then swings (which is normal), and the foot lands unintentionally and painfully on Chilwell’s calf. It's an accident, but not SFP. The red card is way too harsh for me.”

I am most definitely in this camp on this.
 
The Referee Store
We have seen time and time again the wording in law leaves a lot to be desired.

Regarding SFP, nowhere in law does it say SFP is limited to when challenging for the ball. It does say UEF or brutality in challenging for ball is SFP but it does not limit it to it. "If A then B" does not mean "A only if B". This is all semantics though. A player UEF against an opponent must be sent off. Put it under whatever category you like.

Having said that I can understand both sides of the argument here. If It come down to what football expects, it seems that would be split. Personally I would go SFP here. Safety is priority and the onus is on players to ensure it even if you are doing something that is a natural football movement.
 
Last edited:
This will be rescinded 100% by Tuesday, so long as West Ham appeal. If it’s not then we may as well add an amendment to the laws that you can't kick the ball anymore, just in case someone runs across you (with no hope of winning the ball) and you catch them on the way back down. It’s like a car driving across your path, you clipping it, and the police saying “you should have anticipated that”. 😅
 
Very curious. Under the current Laws that's neither a tackle or a challenge for the ball. Uncontested. Curious then how that can be interpreted as SFP?
Both players doing what they are supposed to be doing. :(
Law 12 is very messy but the player has kicked an opponent. The referee has decided this was with excessive force. Whether he challenged for the ball is immaterial according to law.

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

- kicks or attempts to kick

...

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
Excessive force falls under serious foul play for a sending off offence (in this instance), and SFP mandates a “tackle or challenge” there is no challenge, the action is kicking the ball and it’s a natural follow through, not a tackle or challenge.
 
Last edited:
Regarding SFP, nowhere in law does it say SFP is limited to when challenging for the ball. It does say UEF or brutality in challenging for ball is SFP but it does not limit it to it. "If A then B" does not mean "A only if B". This is all semantics though. A player UEF against an opponent must be sent off. Put it under whatever category you like.
I think I disagree with this.
Screenshot_20210425_032742.jpg
So it has to be a tackle or challenge...
Screenshot_20210425_032918.jpg
Screenshot_20210425_033002.jpg

Which by their very definitions include the ball.
 
This is orange for me. The foot is on the way down and is not driving through the player, but it is still high. In the circumstances, yellow might have sufficed.

The fact he is following through after a kick is irrelevant to me. He needs to be aware of his opponent and play accordingly. If that means not sending the long ball, so be it.
 
This is orange for me. The foot is on the way down and is not driving through the player, but it is still high. In the circumstances, yellow might have sufficed.

The fact he is following through after a kick is irrelevant to me. He needs to be aware of his opponent and play accordingly. If that means not sending the long ball, so be it.

the three initial stages are decision to kick, contact with the ball and end stage with follow through. Chilwell is nowhere near him, both players slip towards each other. I know this is subjective but I cannot see how anyone is calling the action here, the action of kicking the ball, serious foul play. Especially when you take into account the definition for SFP and the definition of a tackle and challenge as @JamesL has posted.

052AD2BD-C858-4ED9-8355-E9FE7B728524.jpeg
5F3F408A-D48F-460B-B1DC-9EDFB47B1C40.jpeg
2AB8B294-3295-4715-B804-3CA1A8C8E5B6.jpeg

Now, if you think he’s deliberately brought his foot down on Chilwell, after the ball is played and is gone, in a manner to “leave one on him” that’s violent conduct - “when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball”

this review, initiated by the VAR, is for SFP as the graphic shows. The graphic details come from the PL Match Info Centre, at Stockley Park.
 
Last edited:
The question is whether he has kicked his opponent with excessive force or merely recklessly. In my view, your argument around where SFP ends and VC begins is a red herring. It doesn't matter except for the code you pop in your report.
 
Long live the game we all once loved, ruined by idiotic Law interpretations, Sky, & greedy moneymen, it’s now an absolute joke of a sport. Good luck boys following that edict on Hackney Marshes!
 
I think I disagree with this.
View attachment 4921
So it has to be a tackle or challenge...
View attachment 4922
View attachment 4923

Which by their very definitions include the ball.

Happy to disagree. Your logic doesn't match that wording. You are saying every serious foul play has to be a tackle or a challenge. That is not what the wording is saying. The wording saying if it's challenge or tackle, it's has to be serious foul play. Not the same thing.

Analogy, every fly is an insect. Every insect is not a fly. :)
 
Happy to disagree. Your logic doesn't match that wording. You are saying every serious foul play has to be a tackle or a challenge. That is not what the wording is saying. The wording saying if it's challenge or tackle, it's has to be serious foul play. Not the same thing.

Analogy, every fly is an insect. Every insect is not a fly. :)
I’m leaning more to James side on this…I think.
For it to be SFP the ball has to be within playing distance which would imply a challenge or tackle.

if its not within playing distance it would be VC.
Both of your points have annoyed me though as both make sense :(
 
You are saying every serious foul play has to be a tackle or a challenge.
Yes. I am. If its not a tackle or challenge it becomes violent conduct.

The first four words, "A tackle or challenge". That's a closed shop for me. 2 conditions to be met for SFP.

SFP = tackle or challenge + excessive force /brutality / endangering safety

VC = not tackling/challenging + excessive force/brutality
 
I’m actually in two minds with this, leaning towards the no red camp. Maybe the slow mo is deceptive but he seems to actually plant his foot on the defenders leg. If you kick an object, your foot wouldn’t immediately stop at the object, it would either bounce off or kick through, not just stop
 
Yes. I am. If its not a tackle or challenge it becomes violent conduct.

The first four words, "A tackle or challenge". That's a closed shop for me. 2 conditions to be met for SFP.

...

VC = not tackling/challenging + excessive force/brutality

I don't know how you can say that he is not engaged in conduct incidental to contesting an opponent for the ball. Even if he doesn't know the player is there, he is still in a contest to win the ball. He is following through immediately after winning the ball. This is not a situation where I would consider VC an option, unless he clearly lashed out in a manner which was not incidental to contesting.

SFP is definitely on the table for me. We see these sorts of things all the time. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not convinced it rises to excessive force.
 
Law 12 is very messy but the player has kicked an opponent. The referee has decided this was with excessive force. Whether he challenged for the ball is immaterial according to law.

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

- kicks or attempts to kick

...

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"
This.

FWIW I think the player is fully aware of what he's doing (or what the likely outcome will be by acting as he does), but ultimately it's irrelevant whether he was aware of it or not. Falls under VC either way IMO.
 
Completely unintentional but this is about the risk posed to Chilwell. The potential for a serious injury here is very high.

That’s endangering his safety; no question of excessive force or anything else. Those are irrelevant here. It’s the risk.

Thankfully he wasn’t seriously hurt; if he was would you still be going yellow? Or would you go red then because of it?
Does there have to be a serious injury before you’re convinced of SFP?

You’re straying into that territory if you’re calling this yellow or nothing.
 
Thankfully he wasn’t seriously hurt; if he was would you still be going yellow? Or would you go red then because of it?
Does there have to be a serious injury before you’re convinced of SFP?
I thought referees are not meant to be influenced by any injury though(although we know they can be like Atkinson was a few years ago) and should just make their judgement on the tackle or in this instance passage of play.

I have no idea what's the right decision is in all honesty because I can see why a red was given but a yellow would have no complaints from anyone(pundits, fans) either. Sadly pundits rather just slate the referee rather than go through the laws of the game and then analyse it that way and see why he might give a red card. The fact 2 FIFA referees think this is a red might suggest the decision was right but you not going to hear that on TV.
 
Completely unintentional but this is about the risk posed to Chilwell. The potential for a serious injury here is very high.

That’s endangering his safety; no question of excessive force or anything else. Those are irrelevant here. It’s the risk.

Thankfully he wasn’t seriously hurt; if he was would you still be going yellow? Or would you go red then because of it?
Does there have to be a serious injury before you’re convinced of SFP?

You’re straying into that territory if you’re calling this yellow or nothing.
The risk of kicking a ball?
You take a risk getting out of bed every morning, it doesnt make it safety endangering.
This is a freak accident, one player kicks a ball, the other slips into the path...
If this doesn't get appealed and overturned I'll eat my hat.
Like es1 says if that's a red card we might as well pakc up and go home.
 
I think I disagree with this.
View attachment 4921
So it has to be a tackle or challenge...
View attachment 4922
View attachment 4923

Which by their very definitions include the ball.
Have to say I agree with @JamesL here. It is pretty much black and white in that it must be a tackle or challenge. I would argue he is not competing or contesting the ball as he already has it.

To consider it red, you would have to go VC. I suppose it is subjective, some of us would say both players are competing/contesting the ball where as some would not.

All this being said, I don’t agree with it being red.
 
Back
Top