AR red card?

[TNZebra44]

Ok--watched a replay of Liverpool vs Chelsea, played on Feb 1. Liverpool was up 1-0 can't remember the exact time, somewhere around 88 min, and Liverpool was doing the stall in the corner. One Chelsea player trying to steal the ball back, another Chelsea player comes running in and puts his boot in the back of the Liverpool player. I am sure they were wearing soft pitch boots and metal at that. The Liverpool player was thrown to the pitch over the corner flag. The center didn't see it and for some reason the AR didn't either. AR called a throw-in.

My question, can the AR influence the Center to throw a red and possible more? Never had a situation happen like this to me before nor have I seen it.

[ref2coach]

It depends on the pregame instruction given by the CR to his ARs for the game.

The USSF Guide to Procedures gives instruction regarding the relationship between the members of the referee crew. One point in those instructions is that the AR is to provide information to the CR regarding fouls and/or misconduct that the AR believes that the CR was unable to observe themselves.

Personally my pregame always includes the reminder request that if an AR observes anything that I have not dealt with that in their opinion is clear misconduct they are to get my attention beckon me over and tell me what they saw, who did it and what they recommend.

[Nevadaref]

If the Center doesn't see this, then someone had better! First crack would obviously be the AR in that corner, but if he is screened by the two players contesting for the ball (or intently focused on the ball as he clearly was), then the 4th official should have a decent line of sight on this. The last resort is the other AR.

This is an action that will enrage the offended player and his team. Failing to get this is inexcusable, especially given the use of the headsets for communication!

Here is video of the incident (from 9:18 to 9:45): http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...deoID=51610359

[Welpe]

I believe it was one of the ARs or the fourth official that saw the Zindane headbutt in the 2006 World Cup final so it is certainly possible. We all know how that ended up.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I believe it was one of the ARs or the fourth official that saw the Zidane headbutt in the 2006 World Cup final so it is certainly possible. We all know how that ended up.

The official story from FIFA was that it was the 4th official and he notified the near-side AR who then told the referee as soon as he could obtain his attention.

Personally, I don't buy that explanation, mainly because they were wearing headsets and thus the 4th wouldn't have needed to communicate through the AR. My theory is that the trailing AR, who should have observed the action during live play, but didn't because he was ball-watching while play had shifted to the other end of the field, heard the crowd reaction of those who did see the altercation, then noticed the Italian player on the ground, and so looked up to the large video screen in the stadium on which a replay of the incident was shown. I think that is what caused him to go notify the referee of the offense.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the Center doesn't see this, then someone had better! First crack would obviously be the AR in that corner, but if he is screened by the two players contesting for the ball (or intently focused on the ball as he clearly was), then the 4th official should have a decent line of sight on this. The last resort is the other AR.

This is an action that will enrage the offended player and his team. Failing to get this is inexcusable, especially given the use of the headsets for communication!

Here is video of the incident (from 9:18 to 9:45): http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...deoID=51610359

In fairness to the other AR and the 4th official, there is no way that they could possibly be expected to see through the bodies all the way to the corner for this play. This is what happens when the AR is too close to the play (he only "felt", rather than saw, the foul). While it is true that he has two lines to watch, he needed to get a bit of an angle. The Center clearly thought that the AR had the play covered, but in the case of a delay action in the corner, a cross is typically not imminent. A foul is MUCH more likely. Therefore, I think the Center has to work to get an angle on the play.

[TNZebra44]

I agree the Center should have had a better angle, however the closest AR kicked this big time. All the AR has at this point is OOB and fouls. He was ball watching and was to close to the play. If this happened at a local HS match it would be inexcusable. These officials are supposed to be the cream of the crop.

[Goldfish]

Hi
Both the CR and the AR came out and said that they saw the incident?? Had they said that they did not see the incident the FA was entitled to take retrospective action against the player on the basis of the video evidence. Probably a 3 game ban for SFP. My own view is that the officials could not say that they did not see such a blatant incident and it was easier probably to accept the ridicule of 'no action' rather than the ridicule of not seeing it. I also think that they did not see the incident in its entirety as the AR was too close and looking at the ball while the player had his back to the CR. Technically the 4th official can only get involved in VC not SFP. Either way the player got off 'scot free'

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Goldfish

Technically the 4th official can only get involved in VC not SFP.

Do you think that wasn't VC? It would be difficult to contend that this player was contesting for the ball.

Also, what you noted here is proper according to the current wording on page 39 of the LOTG, but the role of the 4th official is still developing and changing rapidly. I seriously doubt that such a limitation will be imposed on the 4th official by FIFA in the future. If the AR can provide an opinion to the CR regarding SFP, then why not the 4th? I'm thinking that there will be a balance between the 4th not over-interfering in the match, but also helping the crew get decisions correct.

[Goldfish]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Do you think that wasn't VC? It would be difficult to contend that this player was contesting for the ball.

Also, what you noted here is proper according to the current wording on page 39 of the LOTG, but the role of the 4th official is still developing and changing rapidly. I seriously doubt that such a limitation will be imposed on the 4th official by FIFA in the future. If the AR can provide an opinion to the CR regarding SFP, then why not the 4th? I'm thinking that there will be a balance between the 4th not over-interfering in the match, but also helping the crew get decisions correct.

Hi Nevadaref
I believe that with the player in possession of the ball being kicked from behind it can only be SFP and not VC

player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.

Personally I think the 4th official could have covertly given his advice to the CR as he is 'miked up' as well. Also no one can convince me that video evidence was not used in the Zidane WC VC incident by the 4/5th officials as I believe no one seen it in real time. It would have been a travesty had it not resulted in a dismissal. Funnily it would probably have helped the rules if it was not seen as I see nothing wrong with a 5th official looking at a monitor giving advice on facts same as other video refs. I'm sure Mike Riley would have liked to have be told by an Official "Player X kicked red player in the back and is guilty of SFP/VC"

[Nevadaref]

What if that player in possession of the ball is punched from behind?

That question is intended to prove the point that the action must be a credible attempt to play the ball for SFP otherwise it qualifies as VC, even if the offended player has the ball at the time. The opponent cannot be allowed to get off with a lesser charge simply because of that.

I'm glad to see that we agree on the incident in the WC Final.