First question: For those of us who have trouble with calling the trip violent conduct, let us revisit previously mentioned 2CT and (at least in the post referenced...) JA's send off for 2CT (UB for entering the field illegally[ATR 12.28.6 Note], UB for the trip) option on how to handle this. In what way would this 2CT send off confuse anyone? ("This one is for entering the field illegally, this one is for tripping the attacker, this one says the parking lot is thata way.") This approach is FACT based, VC requires opinion, granted ITOOTR. Fact= illegal entry, Fact = trip. I will grant you that showing three cards right in a row sure looks unusual, but so is the situation, and you can take the opportunity to announce to the world your rational for sending the idiot to the parking lot, step-by-step-by-step. Second question: For those in the VC camp, the trip was straight VC. Ok, lets go back a few weeks to where the goal keeper was sent off for kicking his spectator attacker (VC). Some of you in this camp howled at that injustice of that. So if we apply your VC bar voiced in this substitute trip scenario to the goal keeper attack, then he should have been sent off for VC for just simply tripping his attacker, let alone kicking him. Correct? This seems quite inconsistent and arbitrary to me.
No it isn't. The decision to consider the trip "reckless" instead of "careless" is just as opinion based as the decision to consider it VC would be.
I don't see VC as the best option, but I don't see the spectator scenario a useful comparison. The argument for VC here is that deliberate physical contact was used against an opponent in a context in which the substitute had no right to have any involvement: since no contact was appropriate, the force used was necessarily "excessive." If a defender hacked down an oppoent while everyone was standing around waiting for someone to set up for a corner kick, would we have any problem with VC?
To further nit pick (or perhaps to escalate from nit picking to pedantry . . .) I agree with you that the I&G are of equal force and authority for all practical purposes. The reason I nit picked (and prefaced it by notingt hat I was nit picking) is not to disagree wtih the concept but because referring to the I&G as part of the LOTG has the potential to create confusion when someone goes to look in the LOTG and what is referenced isn't there (at least in the US where the LOTG are often published without the I&G and many referees are more familiar with the ATR than with the I&G). So in discourse about subtleties of law, IMHO, it is useful to be precise about which document is being referenced, as it also helps the education process for those who might be less familiar with the various documents.
In the scenario to which Jim Allen responded, there were two separate and distinct actions of misconduct by the substitute. The substitute first entered the field, and then a few seconds later, kicked the ball away. The scenario in this thread is different. The substitute really did only one thing wrong. He stuck his leg across the line onto the field just as the attacker was running past. Now, that action was wrong for two reasons (entering without permission and tripping the attacker), but there was only one action. Punishing a single action with two cautions is more of a stretch than cautioning for each of two separate actions. If I were working a game in the US, saw this, and had the presence of mind to think it through, I would record the send-off as VC because that's how USSF wants it. OK, I get that. Still, under the Laws, all seven of the send-off offenses do apply to substitutes, and for this action, SFP is a more accurate classification than VC. While neither category fits perfectly, at its core, this was "excessive force", not "fighting". I find the analysis of the Laws in other languages interesting. (Only in English is there a "foul" in Serious Foul Play.) If the game is called slightly differently in different parts of the world, maybe subtle implications of word choice are one factor. Some people seem to approach soccer with religious fervor, and certainly in the context of religion, believers will spend countless hours picking apart passages of scripture, comparing one translation with another. - QC
1) I agree (concede, if you will) that the LOTG say substitutes can be sent off for SFP. 2) You brought up an interesting point that I want to explore. When there is a situation that warrants a red card but the ball is not in play, would you consider VC or SFP? Let's assume for this discussion that this situation meets your criteria of "excessive force" but not "fighting".
Just a suggestion but could we use the phrase; "endanders the safety of the opponent". This falls more along the lines that the action while not excessive on it's face, did endanger the opponent because of the way in which it occured. Ex: a substitute tripping a field player, the action is not expected by the field player and has the higher risk of injury so VC. Also, I know for the most part we are just trying to make sure we find a way to handle this that would be supported by the laws and their application but it is a little disturbing we keep finding ways in which there could be reason to let the offending sub stay. And for those that are saying this action wouldn't be excessive enough for VC then how would we justify sending off a player for taking a refs card away. Taking the card is not excessive force or really violent in any way, it is just petulent and needs to be stamped out, thus VC and a red card. Just my opinion.
SFP is not correct when the ball is not in play ball is not in play when the referee has stopped play, or the ball has crossed some boundary line. It will be deemed as violent conduct. for example, the ref has called a foul on blue #7 after he tripped white #6. the whiste is blown. play is dead. white 6 how kicks blue in the nuts. he is sent off for violent conduct or if on a thrown in or corner kick before the the ball is put into play, white hits blue in the nuts- still VC and not SFP
paper. i totally feel your pain! i am not trying to bully anyone into not calling SFP. the different publications do mess up people's heads. As a referee instructor, I still look at scenarios and scratch my head, but I understand the answer and where FIFA is coming from. there are test questions that will deal with vc or sfp. There will be coaches who will overturn red cards if it written incorrectly. you could still write it down as SFP, i would just hate for someone to change it.
Thanks, bothways. So I'll try and make this my last post on this thread since there isn't much more we can learn from this. My Instructor hat says that for the majority of my students I don't care as much as about the reason, just show the red card during the match. Quite frankly, if its described in detail our local leagues won't overturn the card based on SFP or VC, regardless of how creative the coach gets. My Referee hat says that this can't be SFP (in the OP) because it isn't a foul. I complete ascribe to the fact that SFP means there has to be a foul involved, meaning the ball must be in play, it must occur on the field of play and must be committed by a player, against a player. This to me is why we go with VC for grabbing the card out of the referee's hand. Why not SFP, I mean it doesn't endanger my safety, right? Well, because its not a foul. All the other justification to me is moot. I "feel" the sent off here is justified. I make the decision to go with VC because its not SFP for the reasons I listed above. Could I also go with dueling cautions? Sure, but I think that's silly (unless I have two YC's and I can display them synchronously.... awesome).
We've discussed such scenarios before. For me, to qualify as SFP, the offending player must reasonably believe the ball is in play. For example, suppose two players commit SFP in quick succession, and the referee decides to send them both off. The second foul could be coincidence, or maybe it's retaliation. The delay could be because the referee was applying advantage, or maybe he just hadn't gotten the whistle to his mouth. Even if the whistle sounded a split second before the second foul, the player didn't have time to understand that play was stopped and react. This puts the referee in a tough spot when writing up the second sendoff. Was it SFP or VC? SFP is more appropriate, in my opinion. However, a clever player might appeal and get that decision overturned because play was stopped -- even though the player didn't realize it, and the referee was trying to be nice by not calling it VC. Maybe in the USA, the savvy referee should just write it as VC in order to withstand an appeal, and explain the circumstances in the match report. But to answer your question, if there is no question that play is stopped, I think any contact between players that is serious enough to warrant a sendoff has to be VC. As players are milling around the field (before start, during halftime, or after the final whistle, say), if they kick/trip/charge an opponent, that's not SFP. It's either nothing, UB, or VC, depending on the severity. - QC
One last thought to toss in. The difference between SFP and VC has been taught, by several levels of instructor, as well as in the ATR (not in the LOTG US edition at least) that SFP requires a challenge for the ball. If you don't have a challenge for the ball, then it can't be SFP and must be VC, this is why its VC when ball is out of play, it's against a spectator, referee or teammate. I'd argue, that with a substitute, it is not a legit challenge for the ball, so SFP is off the table. Yes I realize this means a strict reading of Law 12 is wrong by indicating a substitute can be guilty of SFP, so be it.
How about we all agree that a sub can be guilty of SFP as long as the requirements of SFP are met? If the requirements are not met then consider VC. For the mathematically aware it is just the LOTG version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
First Let me start by saying that I'm impressed with the quality of the debate and the civility we kept on this discussion. Reasons like that I spent time reading this board. None of that nonsense we see on other posts, no trolling, no name calling. Thank you all. I too will be wrapping up here but I still believe SFP is the appropriate reason. Law 12 tells me so. While the substitute didn't commit a foul he did commit MISCONDUCT and , misconduct can also be punished with cards and for the same reasons as a foul. Say for a quick instance that the substitute instead of sticking his leg just grabbed the player ever so gently but enough to stop his momentum. What them? Would you still call it VC? I don't believe it would hold water. But one thing we all seem to agree on is that there is no place in a soccer pitch for this kind of behavior and that sub is getting a red card. I'm writing a detailed report and I hope the league would have the guts to punish the player. Once again, thank you for the healthy discussion and until my next pool. And to Mike10 (and others like him), this is proof that we can disagree while engaging in a good positive learning experience too all.
Since serious foul play only happens when it is committed against a player actively playing the ball, we have an odd situation. Typically when outside agents enter the field of play and disrupt play, the match is stopped. Given the outside agent is not a field player can serious foul play in the strict definition be possible? I would think not. Moreover, if the players actions involve holding rather than a tackle from behind that could be ruled to be violent conduct, do we have firm ground in calling it serious foul play? Perhaps, a caution for illegally entering the field of play followed immediately by unsporting behavior satisfies all aggrieved parties. The player is sent off and we don't have the potential for a board of inquiry overturning our decision in the event the player appeals our decision. Your thoughts?
I think it's great that refs try to use the laws as intended. Cudos to the discussion. Threadjack: Any review board that has the authority to overturn a SFP red ought to also have the authority to replace it with a VC red (or whatever). The idea that semantics and/or lawyering would make the punishment for misconduct vanish to nothing is repugnant. Don't the boards get a copy of Law 18? :Endjack (I hope )
To continue the jack for a just a moment (which is sort of a jack of a jack, since the thread was originally about the restart!)... The only place I've ever seen the claim you refer to is on this board and in the theoretical. I mean, maybe a competition authority would do this, but I'd like to see a few real-life examples before I got too worried. At present, it feels like the bureaucratic embodiment of the referee bogeyman.
At the risk of extending the threadjack, I'd actually like to know what actual experiences people have seen with this type of issue. (I've got none to share.) My hope would be in line with what you said. My fear would be that imprecisely framed reports are used as a hook to justify letting someone off the hook from the punishment that they earned by their concuct.
A great point of emphasis for everyone who still doesn't get it. foul (noun) is not the same as foul (adjective) The noun version is very much overused and contributes to confusion such as this one. "DFK offense" and "IFK offense" are much preferred to reduce this confusion. It makes my teeth ache every time I hear a referee describe all DFK offenses as "fouls" (Deliberate handling? Really? Stop that. Bad ref!) I fight the urge to assault any referee that refers to an IFK offense as a "foul."
While I think that a caution for entering the field of play without permission and a 2nd caution for USB would be the easiest to justify in a report, I still believe that a direct red for VC is a valid call because the offense is against a defenseless player. He is expecting a challenge from a substitute and there for can not defend or protect him self from offense, no mater what the substitute does, trips, tackles holds it is all the same.
Surprised that no one has mentioned this before now, but what about a caution to the coach? Player illegally entering and tripping a OGSO is a red for VC. Coach gets a caution because the player entered without permission. How difficult would that be to sell?
FIFA/USSF, impossible, since you can't caution the coach. HS, beats me, you can there, but I only spectate for those when my kids were playing, never reffed em.