Trip, then attack

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Wow, that's counter-productive. I don't mind the required substitution on a yellow that much, but a 10 minute sin bin is just going to prevent referees from giving justified yellows.

That's why we're trying to fight the rule. And yes, we're not supposed to consider the sit when considering yellow cards, but honestly, how can we not?

I have the same issue with my state's red card policy. The second red you receive is a season ban regardless of why it's given. I bottled several DOGSO cards this past season because it wasn't worth risking the player's season to give the card he'd earned.

A season ban is even worse, IMO. A game or two, I can see.

But, to get back to my original question, if it was a bad enough foul for a caution, would you still give it?

I still didn't think this was bad enough (it was an unintentional tangling of feet), but just because you get wrongfully pummelled does not earn you a freebie. A yellow is a yellow.

[McMac]

Caught on camera: Teen girl attacked during soccer game - 14 News, WFIE, Evansville, Henderson, Owensboro

In the report seen here, the referee (do not know if center or AR) is giving an interview to a reporter. I thought the only words to a reporter should be "no comment". Let the HSL and schools deal with the reporters.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by McMac

I thought the only words to a reporter should be "no comment".

I don't think it's that black and white.

This interview was obviously well after game day, and it doesn't hurt for the public to see officials as people, as opposed to unfamilar foes in stripes shirts. Besides, if this gentleman's assigner was okay with the interview, then we should be, too.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I still didn't think this was bad enough (it was an unintentional tangling of feet), but just because you get wrongfully pummelled does not earn you a freebie. A yellow is a yellow.

That was my thought too.

Originally Posted by bainsey

I don't think it's that black and white.

This interview was obviously well after game day, and it doesn't hurt for the public to see officials as people, as opposed to unfamilar foes in stripes shirts. Besides, if this gentleman's assigner was okay with the interview, then we should be, too.

My concern would primarily be whether I was going to end up being sued. These kinds of situations usually end up with practically everyone present being sued and I wouldn't want to end up saying something dumb on tape that I would have to defend later. Also, the original dateline on the article is the 27th and the game was on the 26th.

Also, I'm not so sure it was well after game day. The referee is still in the same color as the game in question and I wonder if the TV crew would really have tracked down and interviewed the referee at another game some days later.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Also, I'm not so sure it was well after game day.

Maybe not. I made that assumption, because the video was clearly a home-video job, and not that of a local TV station, so I make the assumption that the crew didn't get the intervew that day.

But since you brought it up, sued for what? You didn't throw any punches, nor did you encourage such behavior. You'd have to say something particularly incriminating to wind up in court, but what could you have to say that would even approach that?

[Eastshire]

You have a much higher opinion of the quality of local news videos than I do!

I didn't say successfully sued, just sued. There's always a blame the ref mentality anytime someone gets hurt or a fight breaks out. Say something dumb like "I'd warned her twice to watch her behavior." and now you have to defend against a negligence suit. Better to not say anything to a camera, especially if it's not a news channel to begin with.