A&H

Women’s Charity Shield Scott Red Card

The Referee Store
Welcome to the group - you can help us with a question raised a couple of weeks ago . . . why wear tape on a ring finger when it has no ring on it?

This has been discussed endlessly on here. Players put the tape on because they can't have the ring on. It's a symbolic thing--just like the ring in the first place. Not something I'd do myself, but harmless.
 
This has been discussed endlessly on here. Players put the tape on because they can't have the ring on. It's a symbolic thing--just like the ring in the first place. Not something I'd do myself, but harmless.
And discussed, that is not always the case, in fact it is seldom the case. Often they have a ring under the tape that's why we should always check untill we get to top flight where apparently applying the laws of the game is optional for some laws.
 
If every tackle with contact was a card then the game would be dead. I agree it was a foul but thought the card wasn’t necessarily required on that occasion.
I think you're not accounting for the fact that the law says "a player must be cautioned" for a foul that interferes with or stops a promising attack.

The Chelsea player was moving purposefully into an ideal shooting position right on the edge of the City penalty area and had several team mates ahead of her in threatening positions who she could pass to - which was no doubt why Scott felt the need to launch a rather risky sliding tackle from behind on her to prevent a direct and imminent threat the City goal.

Assuming the referee judged this to be a foul (and she obviously did) then it's pretty much a nailed-on yellow card, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the still below shows the promising attacking position and the nature of the tackle relatively clearly.
IMG_20200831_215940.jpg6
 
Last edited:
And discussed, that is not always the case, in fact it is seldom the case. Often they have a ring under the tape that's why we should always check untill we get to top flight where apparently applying the laws of the game is optional for some laws.

Of course, refs can miss things. But the question posed was why the player would have tape if not for the ring. That's what I answered. And yes, of course, it is something we should check and be embarrassed if we miss.
 
This isn't part of the great tape debate - it clearly looked like a ring from the TV pictures I saw.
Rings are symbolic(s) now 😁
Of course, for me it is purely symbolic. I can't wear my engagement ring when I referee, so I wear one made of tape instead
Welcome to the forum Jess
This subject has been a wasps nest of a debate on here previously. My flippant reply to PinnerP refers back to those historic squabbles! You've just unwittingly stood on a few hornets!
 
Last edited:
If you 2 have quite finished @Deborah3 & @RefIADad we'll keep this on topic. I've tidied this up but anything more and it won't simply be tidied up.
 
The foul was in the other half of the field. At that moment there was nothing more than a promising attack. Stop the game, show the cards, free kick.

Have to agree - especially when we look at the actual LOTG wording

 "if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal"
 
Have to agree - especially when we look at the actual LOTG wording

 "if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal"
Think the law uses the word "should" rather than "must".
 
Back
Top