The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Soccer
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 15, 2007, 08:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14
In case you haven't seen this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIiaXWq1KHY

This comes from the Portugal vs Chile U-20 World Cup game. Pretty crazy stuff, would you send him off?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 16, 2007, 09:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
No doubt about it, send him off. Hillarious to watch though.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 16, 2007, 12:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 361
I believe that their should have been 4 red cards. The VC for striking an opponent, the VC taking the red card, that were issued.

#11 & #19 should have also been sent off for holding the referees arms down when he first got the red card out of his pocket and first attempted to display it.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 17, 2007, 02:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,007
There has been some debate as to whether the action of #9 warrants a send off under the LOTG. Remember that one of the seven listed offenses MUST be cited as the reason for the send off. So which of the seven could the referee use?

I can only see two possibilities. Either Violent Conduct or offensive, insulting, or abusive language and/or gestures.

VC does not seem to be the best fit as although the player did take the card he didn't seem to make physical contact with the referee and even if he did that contact certainly wasn't violent.

Therefore, declaring the snatching of the card from the referee's hand to be an insulting gesture seems to be the only reasonable justification for the send off.

I wonder what the official position of FIFA and the USSF is on this. Perhaps we will see a clarification memo from one of the governing bodies shortly.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 17, 2007, 06:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There has been some debate as to whether the action of #9 warrants a send off under the LOTG. Remember that one of the seven listed offenses MUST be cited as the reason for the send off. So which of the seven could the referee use?

I can only see two possibilities. Either Violent Conduct or offensive, insulting, or abusive language and/or gestures.

VC does not seem to be the best fit as although the player did take the card he didn't seem to make physical contact with the referee and even if he did that contact certainly wasn't violent.

Therefore, declaring the snatching of the card from the referee's hand to be an insulting gesture seems to be the only reasonable justification for the send off.

I wonder what the official position of FIFA and the USSF is on this. Perhaps we will see a clarification memo from one of the governing bodies shortly.
Certainly it is an insulting gesture. I also think any intentional non-friendly contact against the referee should be considered violent, and I don't see a difference between the referee and his cards.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 17, 2007, 08:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
Certainly it is an insulting gesture. I also think any intentional non-friendly contact against the referee should be considered violent, and I don't see a difference between the referee and his cards.
You may well be in the minority thinking that this qualifies as VC. Here is what the LOTG says regarding VC on page 61:

"He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate or any other person."

Did the player use excessive force or brutality against the referee when taking his card? I seriously doubt it. Therefore, I'm against citing VC as the reason for the send off.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 17, 2007, 09:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
You may well be in the minority thinking that this qualifies as VC. Here is what the LOTG says regarding VC on page 61:

"He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate or any other person."

Did the player use excessive force or brutality against the referee when taking his card? I seriously doubt it. Therefore, I'm against citing VC as the reason for the send off.
What's the appropriate amount of force against the referee? IMO, none. Therefore he used excessive force. But go with the easiest sell.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 18, 2007, 01:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
What's the appropriate amount of force against the referee? IMO, none. Therefore he used excessive force. But go with the easiest sell.
Numerous people have expressed such a sentiment regarding similar situations. In this case, I don't have anything official which says that it is incorrect, but my opinion is that there is only one valid reason for sending off the player, and violent conduct isn't it.

Just my unauthoritative two cents.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jul 18, 2007, 05:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 31
At a minimum the guys let their actions hurt the team. How do you score a tying goal when you are down 1 or 2 or more players????? This is a too common reaction that I fail to understand. Caught up in the moment I guess. I think it was the right call

Last edited by JerBear; Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 05:59pm.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jul 19, 2007, 12:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerBear
At a minimum the guys let their actions hurt the team. How do you score a tying goal when you are down 1 or 2 or more players????? This is a too common reaction that I fail to understand. Caught up in the moment I guess. I think it was the right call
What exactly do you think was the right call? -- and why?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 21, 2007, 02:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 31
Send off #18 for offense (2) violent conduct, he teed off on him from 15 yards away and blind sided him for no real reason other than retaliation. Send off #9 for offense (6) insulting gesture, I consider the forcible removal of a piece of an official's equipment by a player to be insulting to his ability to interpret the action on the field. He was doing his job and the player wasn't allowing him to continue and as such is clearly an insulting gesture to his authority. Caution # 11 & 19 for Offense (2) dissent by their actions of arguing and generally getting in the (center's) face even as he was clearly trying to do his job but their actions did not rise to a send off level. The only caveat that may come into play there is if they were captains and as such are in a position to inquire as to an officials reasoning.
JMO

Too much of this type of crap in sports today!

Last edited by JerBear; Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 02:34pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Case 6.3.2 rwest Basketball 8 Thu Oct 28, 2004 04:04pm
Just in case vincebradford'sboy71 Basketball 26 Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:06am
case 8.3.1 A biglaz Baseball 3 Thu Mar 27, 2003 01:51pm
Who is out in this case ? Mrhappybigpants Softball 3 Fri Jul 26, 2002 05:07pm
ASA case oppool Softball 6 Wed Feb 14, 2001 11:11pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:28am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1