Another Red, Another Appeal Stoke v. Crawley Towne (R)

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Rufusabc, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004


  2. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Without passing comment yet, I think it's worth adding that the Stoke manager claims the fourth official recommended the red card. The evidence on film, which initially shows little reaction from the referee, seems to back that up.

    Also, the coach's comments were relatively fair. "Fumes" says the headline and he definitely disagreed with the decision, but he seemed measured, at least (probably due to the fact he still won?): http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1024201/pulis-fumes-at-delap-sending-off?cc=5901
  3. footyref1

    footyref1 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    The question most definitely is whether or not there is contact, as both of you have mentioned. Got to listen to Herb Silva this weekend and the rule of thumb for the MLS is that there has to be contact. For example, a player on the ground took a swipe with his leg at another player. Herb's answer, no contact, no red. It's the big boys so there has to be contact.

    I don't think there is anything the center could do at that point. He has to take the opinion of his 4th into consideration unless he is 100% sure the 4th is wrong. I can't imagine any referee at that level turning down the advice of a crew member unless, again, he was 100% sure otherwise.

    Matthew - www.footyref.blogspot.com
  4. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I did?

    He said that as a hard and fast rule? I mean, I can totally see him saying "it's the big boys," etc., and to have that color his opinion and instructions on tackles in general. But to say no contact, no red seems to go against everything FIFA and the USSF has ever said. Less likely to be red, maybe. But I can't imagine Herb Silva declared that as a hard and fast rule and I really hope he didn't.


  5. footyref1

    footyref1 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    Sorry, thought you had said something about contact, but you are right, you hadn't.

    No, not as a hard and fast rule, but as a rule of thumb. Whereas I might call something in my U16 youth game the MLS referee would not even bat an eye in his game. The clip at RTS showed a player on his back kicking toward an opponent. Because he didn't make contact the recommended outcome was a yellow to him, instead of a red if he had made contact. I would imagine a red would be warranted for an attempted punch to the head that missed but that never came up in the discussions.

    With relation to the clip above the idea would be that nothing should be called IF there was no contact made. Was it dangerous? Yes. But since there was no contact there is no foul or need to deal with misconduct.

    I'm not saying there was not contact in the Stoke game, even on replay it is hard to tell.

    Hopefully I made this a little clearer - not a hard rule but a general concept.
  6. uniqueconstraint

    uniqueconstraint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    Indianapolis,Indiana - home of the Indy Eleven!
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    WOW, great video rufus. Thanks for posting.

    Man, I dunno about that - seems we're building up a "Kompany file" of sorts. I could see calling a foul - and as MassRef states, Mike Jones was signaling throw-in right away, I agree it was probably Probert that communicated foul and red card. From their angle it likely looked much worse than it was. Still, I'd love to have a copy of whatever Mike Riley sent out to the teams (this is a good tackle, this is not) to see where this one stacks up.

    Bottom line, I could see calling a foul, perhaps a caution since it was careless IMO, not sure it's a RC but the cleats are up...glad I wasn't Mike Jones, after about 5 looks I'm still not sure.

    That said, there were other moments in this match that intrigued me.

    I counted 7 Stoke players surrounding Jones as he sent off Delap, if you're not going to caution at least loudly declare you're not talking to anyone that isn't a captain. For pete's sake, crowding the ref like that is unbelievable. One of them at the end tugged Jones' arm to pull him around a little, while I get it's the pros and they might not I'd caution at least for that at the club level. Look but don't touch. :eek:

    At about 2:20 Jones awards a Stoke PK - IMO that was really soft. I wonder if he wasn't watching the ball flight rather than play, good job selling by the Stoke player in any event. If you're going to award that PK, then why not award Crawley a PK earlier (can't remember the time)? Seems the same level of "contact" to me.

    At about 4:40 there is, IMHO, a clearly missed DOGSO-H. While the Stoke player's arm is at his side he clearly turns himself to play the ball with his arm. I saw it on the clip at game speed, given where he was I could see the AR being shielded a little by the goal. Still between Jones and his AR they missed that one.
  7. GTReferee

    GTReferee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    I do not see that as excessive force. Caution for reckless tackle...
  8. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    I think he wins the ball and the BALL hits the opponents foot with the downward force. It truly is a tough, tough call, and Lee Mason (IMHO) is having a poor season (which actually may be a poor career by now). So, he gives bad advice and the send off is made. But, Stoke win, and that's that.
  9. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Lee Probert was the 4th, not Lee Mason.
  10. chwmy

    chwmy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    hmm- i don't mind red. not sure what i'd give there, but i would like to think i would be yellow at least.

    left both feet: check. leg straight and tackling boot off the ground and studs out: check. potential for severe injury if mistimed: check.

    i'm not sure why the players/coaches don't say "well, i guess we'll just stop making studs up straight leg high tackles now." is this type of tackle THAT important to the game of soccer? wouldn't that solve the problem?
  11. NHRef

    NHRef Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    Southern NH
    Not to stir up trouble (ok, those that know me just spit up all over their monitors :) )


    Have we gone to far:

    How can you slide tackle without leaving both feet?, Yes leg is straight, he's reaching for the ball, every, well most, slide tackles have you off your feet with a straight leg. Boot off the ground? It will almost always be, yes it's off the ground, but it is ball height or lower.

    Studs out? Well ok, you got me there, they are showing. Potential for injury? Slippery slope.

    While it would be difficult to argue with the words you use, it's also difficult to make a legal slide tackle without leaving your feet and with legs bent.

    As for potential for injury, well yes, but there's also the potential for a good challenge here.

    I am all for getting bad/dangerous challenges out of the game, but when we go to the length that this is a red card challenge, have we gone to far?
  12. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Boy, talk about your angle of view.
    From one angle it looks like Red.
    From another, it looks like nothing.
    (I don't really see the Yellow angle--I guess that would be the Red w/o contact.)

    The real discussion point is how uncertain do you have to be to get talked into a Red. I suppose if the CR felt he was 90% or more certain he would either overrule the suggestion or go talk. I usually think that conversing with the AR has good results, in terms of match control. Do you think the same applies to conferring with the 4O? Then there is that whole issue of time ticking away when using reftalk, where it looks like you are being undecisive...
    Tough situation.
  13. chwmy

    chwmy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    i don't think you are stirring trouble- i love this sort of discussion!

    but, to parse my last post...
    1: should i not consider the distance from play that a tackling player has left his feet? is it not more reckless to initiate a tackle from farther away?
    2: straight in this sense to me is not that the knee is bent, it is the fact that the axis of the leg is in line with the body, multiplying the weight behind the tackle.
    3: a tackling foot will always be slightly off the ground to be sure.

    am i off base to consider these factors when deciding between careless, reckless, and endangering?

    when i look at tackles like these, i remind myself that the style of this tackle is not necessary: a leg that is swept across the ball along the ground is just as likely to be effective, and less likely to injure, as the weight of the tackler is not behind it. maybe i just don't like lunge tackling. but maybe lunge tackling is the source of a disproportionate number of leg-breaking injuries.
  14. andymoss

    andymoss BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Club:
    Manchester City FC
    Country:
    England
  15. andymoss

    andymoss BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Club:
    Manchester City FC
    Country:
    England
  16. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    It's interesting to me that the FA is revieiwng pure judgment calls. There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest a misapplication of Law here.

    Will MLS entertain red card appeals based on a disagreement with referee judgment or is this unique to the FA?
  17. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    The schizophrenia of the FA is what makes this a ridiculous decision. One week they are defending red cards for borderline tackles, the next they are overturning them. If they didn't defy FIFA and wade into this territory to begin with, we wouldn't have many of these problems that we face regularly now. All this does (aside from overturning an "automatic" 3-match ban that doesn't have to be automatic in this first place!) is make more referees second-guess themselves on major decisions going forward. Great.

    Personally, I had come to Andy's conclusion... that this was a valid decision to give a red card. The tackle was made at speed and the nature of the challenge itself was over the ball (once the foot slid up from the initial touch) with studs exposed. There just was no real control and the fact that he didn't seriously injure the opponent was down to luck, more than anything.

    That's what shocked me so much about the comments attributed to Herb Silva. And now the overturning by the FA disappoints me. For years we've been told it's the nature of the challenge--not the result--that determines how we punish things. It doesn't seem that everyone is ascribing to that theory today. I've said for awhile that we've been over-instructed and that hurts us as referees. Now referees are being over-legislated after-the-fact, too. And that doesn't help either.
  18. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Somewhat unique to the FA. But the more the FA does it without punishment from FIFA (which was threatened several years back, when they started getting too liberal with their reviews), the more likely it could creep into other leagues.
  19. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Location:
    Tampa
    Well, if it's not in the theatrical release of the video, it's certainly in the director's cut dvd now. :)

    So, we CAN'T use post-game video to punich vc (etc) if the ref only gives it a yellow, but we CAN use post-game video to evaporate SFP? What a mess!
  20. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Guys, it might not even have been a foul. It certainly wasn't a red card.
  21. nsa

    nsa Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 1999
    Location:
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Remember that the FA has a vote on the LOTG.

    There are a total of eight votes, four of which come from the British isles. :rolleyes:
  22. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Not sure what you're getting at, Nat. FA has a vote on the LOTG with the IFAB, absolutely. But FIFA is the body that punishes national associations when they stray from the Laws or FIFA's dictates. FIFA might be more reluctant to punish the FA than other associations--either because they need the FA at the IFAB or just because it's more high-profile and oversees a lucrative league--but the FA's status with the IFAB by itself does not put it out of FIFA's reach.

    Also, though I think I can interpret your eye roll, I want to say that I personally like having the British FAs holding a collective veto. Someone needs to, at least. It's an arcane and possibly archaic system, but it beats the alternative, which would be allowing FIFA (and thereby whatever buffoon happens to become its President at any given time) to change the Laws at any time on a whim. Yes, it concentrates power in one tiny region and that might be seen as unfair to the rest of the world. But it neutralizes the worst type of international politics infringing on the Laws.
  23. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Two posters whose opinions I respect. Two diametrically opposing opinions on the same incident. And I'm sure it wouldn't take long for a third person to say "absolutely a foul but no way a red card."

    I'm not sure if we'll ever get where we need to be. Or if we'll ever even know--collectively (referees, administrators, fans, players, coaches) where we want to be.

    Do we want this sort of tackle out of the game completely, because it is inherently dangerous and any significant contact here could have been devastating?

    Or do we accept that this sport, like almost all sports, is inherently dangerous and certain types of tackles are going to get made, as they always have, and we just have to accept it unless the result forces referees to address it?

    From Switzerland down, we've been pushed toward the former conclusion for about 18 years now. It's been incremental, but it's been steady. And we've reached the point where many different types of tackles can be interpreted as red cards. And referees have been pushed to give red cards.

    But now, particularly this season, there feels like there is a bigger revolt with people who think like Rufusbac. They are sick of challenges which were previously viewed as innocuous suddenly becoming game-changing red card decisions. And, in this situation, the FA appears to agree and undermines the officials... who are only making these decisions, it should be noted, because they've been pushed to do so by the governing bodies in the first place.

    It's a maddening cycle and it leads to intelligent people who love the sport arriving at two completely different conclusions. I really don't know how it gets fixed.

    As one of those random anecdotes, I happened to be watching some old FA Cup footage the other day, when the tackle in the video below appeared. I was struck that, other than the aggrieved player who immediately took matters into his own hands, barely anyone noticed something was out of the ordinary. No one appealed for a send off. No one crowded the referee--not because those things weren't done back then, but because people didn't expect send offs for tackles like this and players didn't try to get their opponents sent off usually. Anyway, I think every referee here would say our instructions would lead to a red card on this now. I think many would be talking about how there was no foul call on an incident that could have been red. But I also wonder how many fans or managers would say, given the actual result, that there was no real harm done and that a yellow or maybe less could suffice? Regardless, tackles like this, with no foul called, show just how far this game has evolved:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH2hwrOI7Cs"]Terry Fenwick tackle on Garth Crooks 1982 FA Cup Final - YouTube[/ame]
  24. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Location:
    Tampa
    Even accepting your opinion as gospel, I can't get my head around this situation.

    The "Well, at least they did the right thing in the end" idea blows my little mind. That only works because the aggrieved team won the game. If the result had gone the other way (and, God forbid, had some huge implication like promotion/relegation, championship/receivership...), the riot in the street would just increase after a pronouncement like this. "See, even the FA admits the refs suck!" (Where is Mike10 when I need him? Alas.)

    Is it over the top to say this logically opens the floodgates for all sorts of post-game mayhem?

    The only parallels I can come up with is that NFL ref who publicly apologized for screwing up a game or the baseball ump who publicly apologized for destroying a perfect game. But, in each of those cases, it was a individual admitting they were wrong on the facts, not their boss saying they were guilty of poor judgement.

    If the culture of our sport is "one shot for the players, one shot for the refs" (and it undeniably is), then this decision is from outside our culture. I don't get it.
  25. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    There was a play in the Everton v. Chelsea match a few weks ago, where Phil Neville made a crunching body block on Ashley Cole and the subsequent forward movement of the ball allowed Everton to score its second of the match. Neville was always going to win the ball and Cole was always going to be second. Neither player gave up.

    I think we see some of the same things in this tackle. Delap (imho) was going to be first and in fact won the ball, the Crawley Town player was a hair later, but went in with full speed as well. Delap crunches the ball, forcing it down on the CT player. Yes, it's a bit high, yes it's dangerous to the CT player IF he continues, but that's the pro game. And I think the referee in this case was NOT calling a foul but was convinced by the 4th to call a foul. The 4th saw it differently. And instead of having a discussion, (that may last 20 seconds) we have a red card and then a scrum that lasts 40 seconds. No CT player appears to be calling for a red, and I think the CT manager would have been satisfied with a yellow (with his arm waving).

    Anyway, I value and respect the many opinions on this board, and I appreciate the spirit in which we debate these things. At my level of game, I know full well that the players on the pitch COULD NOT execute that tackle without maiming their opponent. And that type of tackle would be sanctioned, but this is a whole 'nother level. Delap made a tackle he has been making for years and the CT player got hit with the downward force of the ball. Ball out for a throw. Let's play.

Share This Page