In case you haven't seen this...

[IDref]

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?

[Eastshire]

No doubt about it, send him off. Hillarious to watch though.

[ref2coach]

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.

[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.

[Eastshire]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Eastshire]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[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

[Nevadaref]

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?

[JerBear]

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!