Despite watching the match live, I'm a little late to the game here, so a lot of my thoughts will have already been covered. But here's how I see things on the two red cards. First, if I'm in the match and see each incident from the optimal angle, I believe I'd give red for the first but not the second. That said... 1) Koscielny red card - The foul is obvious, yet it's still a courageous call from Dean. I don't think the comparisons, like Englishref has made above, to other grappling in penalty area is apt. Sure, we can complain that holding on corner kicks isn't called, but this is different. Koscielny grabs him blatantly and deliberately because he's beat and he believes that the attacker is going to get to the ball with an obvious goal-scoring opportunity; that's a little bit different than some of the grappling on corner kicks, though, admittedly, only by a matter of degree. Anyway, 100% penalty for me. And, I think given our instructions and the perception of Koscielny being the "last man," red card is the only realistic option. As was mentioned above, Koscielny is making the foul because he's beat and he thinks his attacker is going to get to the ball before his keeper. The spirit of the law and game say it has to be a red. I do wonder, however, if an obvious goal-scoring opportunity was actually denied. There's a chance Tevez was always getting to the ball first (or that he ended up with a better opportunity) and there's also a decent chance the goalkeeper could have gotten to the ball first. I think this is one of those rare situations where the spirit of the laws call for a more draconian punishment than the letter of the law might allow. If you really parse this situation, you can make a pretty decent case that this isn't DOGSO, as spelled out in the LOTG. But, we all know what Koscielny and why he did it. As I've said in other situations--and despite everything I just wrote--we shouldn't overthink the obvious. Once you spot the foul and blow the whistle here, most reasonable and impartial observers are going to expect the red. Plus, if you didn't give red and had a DOGSO case for the other side later, you're going to be in a world of trouble. So, give the red. Dean did right. 2) Kompany red card - I've watched it over and over and over again and, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. As some have stated, I see why and how Dean thought it was red. And, having given one the other way, a borderline case is probably going to be red. But I just don't think it rises to anything near the SFP level. To start, I think the contact looks (and is) worse because Wilshere slips, on his own, as the tackle is made but before any player-to-player contact occurs. More to the point, though, I don't think this is excessive force. It's a strong tackle, but not dirty or malicious. Yes, for a split second he's off the ground and, yes, the first leg is extended and studs are showing at one point. But not every single "checked box" is what it always seems. The studs go through the ball with the lead leg, play the ball away, and don't make contact with the opponent. The leaving of the ground isn't in an attempt to launch himself at the opponent; in short, it's not the sort of "two-footed lunge" we hear so much about. He plays the ball with the first leg and points the second leg downward, almost in an attempt to avoid any bad contact (which, he probably would have, if Wilshere hadn't slipped). The reason Kompany leaves his feet briefly is because he's tackling from a standing start--making a slide tackle, standing in front of your opponent, from a standing start is... well, if it's not impossible it's certainly incredibly awkward and would probably risk your own safety. So long as Kompany isn't lunging and exposing his studs at or into his opponent, I don't see a problem here. I don't see excessive force and I don't see the player's safety being endangered at all--not even close, in my opinion. This was a winnable ball, after Wilshere's final touch, which Kompany won. If this is a foul and maybe a caution in the "modern game," I accept that. But if this sort of tackle, where a player is seemingly taking great care to do a lot of things right, is now a textbook red card because one boot had its studs exposed and Kompany was briefly in the air... well, I don't think that's a good thing. You can say things like, "once a player leaves his feet, he has no control," which is a popular assertion with tackles like this. But, in this case, I think Kompany was always in control of what he was doing. I know why Dean went red. But I don't agree and I hope tackles like this aren't supposed to be red cards going forward. It's one thing to recognize some signs of SFP... it's another thing to put the entire puzzle together and ask the question, "was this really excessive force or did it endanger the safety of the opponent?"
Kompany won appeal against his red card, but I disagree with that decision and remind everyone that he lost an appeal against a similar red card last year. This is what Graham Poll has to say about the red card for Kompany. Kompany deserved his red - you cannot tackle with both feet off the ground Vincent Kompany insists he will continue to tackle the way he did yesterday and after the game tweeted: ‘No grudges against the referee, I understand the difficulty of the job. About the tackle: If the ball is overrun by the opponent and a 50/50 challenge occurs, collision is inevitable. ‘Ultimately, I’m a defender: I will never pull out of a challenge, as much as I will never intend to injure a player.’ While his honesty is commendable and sentiments laudable, Kompany must realise that he will HAVE to change or face red cards for the rest of his career. He is an excellent defender and seems to be a nice guy – but those things are not considered by referees, nor should they be. Referees are instructed that when a player goes into a challenge with both feet off the ground he is not in control of his actions and must be dismissed as he is endangering the safety of an opponent. Whether we agree with this interpretation or not we have to accept it, rather like the fact that until a player plays the ball he is not interfering with play when considering offside. Players and managers have to accept those changes and adapt – and it can be done. I remember refereeing Steven Gerrard when he frequently committed a far more obvious straight legged two footed tackle with all 12 studs showing. He was sent off and even suspended using video evidence when I missed one such tackle on Gary Naysmith in a Merseyside derby and we spoke about the need to change. Gerrard recognised that the law had changed and adapted his tackling style without losing any impact he had in the game and I just hope that Kompany will do the same. There can still be tackles in football and very robust ones at that but players must be in control of their movements and once both feet leave the ground they are not. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2262103/Vincent-Kompany-red-card-deserved--Graham-Poll.html#ixzz2I3rre3Vo
Deos anyone know the process used in the FA to evaluate whether to rescind a red card? I saw some press coverage that suggested it mattered what Dean thought after the fact -- is that right?
I think this is down to the speed of the players in the modern game. Watch ANY old time video of footy on youtube. The game was SLOWER. And the players abilities do not compare with players of today. (not saying they are as good, only that they are far more athletic!) There were no players of Vincent Kompany's size playing 25 years ago with HIS type of ability. Sure, they might have been big, but they didnt possess the quickness and agility that he possesses. It's true in all sports.
Apparently the FA disagrees with most of you that believe this is a red card for SFP. http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Team-news/2013/January/Kompany-appeal-successful Rescinded.
If I can echo MassRef, I think Koscielny left Dean with no choice with how he fouled even if all of the aspects of OGSO are as apparent as I otherwise would prefer. Koscielny meant to DOGSO.
Well stated indeed sir! I understand what Dean thought he saw and do not blame him at all for the send off. But with replay available...it's a good tackle made to appear worse by Wilshere's slip. With that said, I could see declaring exposing studs straight legged (whether he got all ball or not) as reckless and showing yellow.
So the smiley face makes you right? The tackle last year was much worse and was definitely (to use US jargon) 100% misconduct. I still don't personally believe that was a send-off challenge either. This is all that needs to be said about this. He didn't tackle with both feet off the ground. The rest of Poll's nonsensical ramblings are just as factually incorrect.
It remains inexplicable why the red card would be shown to Kompany in the first place but not to Marko Marin (Chelsea) for his tackle against QPR two weeks ago. In both cases the player came from a stationary position and raised both his legs, but in Kompany's case the legs were immediately lowered and tucked away to prevent injury, never having come higher than a couple inches off the ground. In Marin's case the legs were extended straight through the opponent's leg with wildly excessive force, and remained at knee height through the tackle. Yet Kompany is sent off and Marin merely cautioned. Can you really blame the players, fans, and media for wanting a little consistency?
I think saying that Marin came from a stationary position gives him way too much credit. He was moving toward and lunging at his opponent, who was closer to being stationary (where, in the Kompany case, Wilshere was coming at him). That said, your overall point still stands. The only answer is that both referees got it wrong. I'd say Mason got it much more wrong than Dean, though. Mason simply missed a textbook red card. Dean sanctioned a tackle as a red card because he saw some signs of red in the tackle and, from his angle, that decision seems understandable.
What? I checked it later upon posting and that's correct, I was wrong about that. He did, however, go flying in with two legs and pulled his leg back before making contact. So he initiated a tackle two-footed and was lucky to have enough time to pull out. That's what I think Poll meant.
Lucky? Sorry, but at this level it's not luck. He's one of the best center backs in the world. Pure skill.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. We don't judge on what might have happened, merely what did happen. The FIFA ATR on Law 12 contains: ***start Fouls - Direct Free Kick Fouls Group of Six: - kicks or attempts to kick an opponent - trips or attempts to trip an opponent - jumps at an opponent - charges on opponent - strikes or attempts to strike an opponent - pushes an opponent For this group of six, the referee must consider how the action was done: - carelessly - recklessly - with excessive force Group of four: - tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball - holds an opponent - spits at an opponent - handles the ball blah, blah, blah For this group of four direct free kick fouls, the referee is concerned only with whether the action occurred, not with and how it was done. ***end Yes, I understand this is different than the seven direct free kick fouls in the laws and yes, I understand that an otherwise "clean" tackle may be careless, reckless or committed with excessive force. Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, he did not "go flying in with two legs". Try not to "think" that's what Poll meant. Take what he said at face value. Luck doesn't even begin to factor in and to say that he "could've broken a leg" is where you've lost me completely.
So based on what you said, do you think he deserved a yellow? Or was it not a foul at all? Because my understanding of your post is that there was no offence committed at all - not a bookable, not a free kick. But just wanted to clarify that.
No offense, honestly, but you are hardly qualified to be assessing with such affirmation an EPL match. Andy is a National referee (after he passes the fitness test) Gee that will be really tough for him, not. Many others on here are current/former State or National referees with professional training and game experience. Does that mean we know everything or as much as EPL FIFAs? Hell no. But go back to what you said. You're doing youth games up to the U16 level. Not saying you shouldn't chime in with your opinion, but your analysis doesn't carry much weight. It wasn't even a foul. However, it was a reckless action. I'd be fine not even cautioning it at this level if you think you could manage your way though it and just giving a DFK. Different game? OK give a caution. But it wasn't red. 15 years ago no one would blink an eye at this tackle or even be talking about a caution. That being said at game speed I can understand why Dean went red. It looked bad, but ultimately it wasn't. We have the benefit of HD replays from 47 different angles and 400 camera men snapping photos all around the field. Dean didn't have that benefit.
I don't see your point. This is how I saw it and I came to the forums with that backed by the opinion of Graham Poll, which I cited here. So it's not like I came here to argue based on what I know and what I think with just my grade 8 badge to my name - if Graham Poll said that it was the wrong decision and everyone else (you can see a bunch of people think it was SFP on the first page) was saying it was the wrong decision, I perhaps would have no case at all, but if I saw something one way and I have a column by Graham Poll backing up what I think, then it's only natural to come forth with that. And my last question was to Andy anyway - I see what he explained and I wanted to clarify whether he meant it was a foul at all, just without a booking, or was it a clean tackle in his opinion. The main reason for this debate being I want to not only get experience on the field with U-16 games (you gotta start somewhere) but also learn outside of it and take the opportunity to learn from those who have made it so to speak, or at least made it to a much higher level than I am. And the forums provide a great opportunity for that which is why I am debating and asking questions... no need to get personal. Ok. I've got a feeling that the temperature of the game and probably the reaction of the home crowd as well as the home players combined with the fact that he already sent off Koscielny earlier (maybe not the last one, I'm guessing) helped him make his decision, if he initially wasn't going for red.
andymoss -- off the main point, but you lost me and I'm not sure where . . . you say the "FIFA ATR," which I assume was a typo for USSF ATR, but the most recent USSF ATR captures the 7 and 3 (which might be better described, IMHO, as 7-2-1 as handling must be deliberate, but that's an aside on an aside . . .) . . . are you just quoting the old ATR b/c you have a quotable version, or am I missing something?
Be very careful about using EPL (or any pro games) as a guage for what a fouls is in a U16 game. A lot of what happens routinely in pro games would be considered pushing, careless or reckless charging, holding, and PIADM at younger less skilled levels where players have less control of their bodies.