Beckham [R]

[USSF REF]

So... Beckham was sent off in the match he played this weekend.

Becks is Sent Off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVH33_XRClI)

Beckham was certainly stupid to do it, but was it really Serious Foul Play or Violent Conduct (if you decided he wasn't going for the ball). Or could the referee have simply given a caution?

What say you?

Also, what about the first "foul" that went uncalled, what do you think about that play?

[geego]

To complement it, the official match report (http://www.rfef.es/artavan-bin/Rfef/html/calendario/103/100/10010323_acta02_000003007.htm) is available on line. The ref stated "kicking an opponent from the backside with no chance of playing the ball".

B.- EXPULSIONES
- Real Madrid C.F. :
+ En el minuto 89 el jugador (23) Beckham, David Robert Joseph fue expulsado por el siguiente motivo: por dar una patada por detras a un adversario sin opcion de jugar el balon

[Ref Flunkie]

I agree with the no call prior to the RC (looks like Becks went down pretty easy with little contact). I agree with the referee's description that Becks seemed to pretty viciously kick at the player from behind and really had no shot at getting the ball. However, it looked like the major swipe did not make any (or much) contact, and what brought the player down was the first contact from behind, which was less vicious. I think if we punish for intent, it is a RC. If we punish for what actually happened, a YC.

[Alberto]

A very easy serious foul play call. The Betis player had the ball at his feet playing it out when Beckham applied the scissors kick from behind.

Now a more important question was raised by Ray Hudson in his commentary. That the referee had earlier missed a penalty and that it fueled the frustration of the Real players and particularly Beckham. I do believe the non call by the referee prior to Beckham misconduct was a good call, there was incidental if no contact and Beckham went down like a ton of bricks to try and deceive the referee into calling a foul. Good observation by Hudson how Beckham has on occasion lost his head in matches. This is the type of information that referees should have on players and their tendencies to possibly diffuse situations.

Did anyone see the match and can they speak to Hudson's comments?

[Spaceball]

I think you have to take the match situation into account as well. I have not watched the incident (will look later, but it is not loading for some reason right now). However, if you look at the match report, there were 11 cautions. That is a ton for a match at this level. Additonally, this was the 5th card in 4 mintues:eek: . If the incident was borderline, it may have been a case where the temperature of the match just required it to be red. I would think when you are about to pull your 12th caution and 5th in 4 minutes, you have to realize you are not getting much for them.

On the other hand, he had just given 3 cautions in 3 minutes to Betis...so possibly he could have decided that he owed Betis (and there 7 yellows) the red rather than Madrid.

Like I said, I haven't seen the play, but I think this is certainly something you have to consider in the overall decision.

[USSF REF]

I think you have to take the match situation into account as well. I have not watched the incident (will look later, but it is not loading for some reason right now). However, if you look at the match report, there were 11 cautions. That is a ton for a match at this level. Additonally, this was the 5th card in 4 mintues:eek: . If the incident was borderline, it may have been a case where the temperature of the match just required it to be red. I would think when you are about to pull your 12th caution and 5th in 4 minutes, you have to realize you are not getting much for them.

On the other hand, he had just given 3 cautions in 3 minutes to Betis...so possibly he could have decided that he owed Betis (and there 7 yellows) the red rather than Madrid.

Like I said, I haven't seen the play, but I think this is certainly something you have to consider in the overall decision.


There is one thing to add to your post - that you may not be aware of and I don't know if it would change your mind on anything...

The referee blew the whistle for full time 10 seconds or so after the ensuing restart. So I don't know how much weight the referee was giving to what his cards were actually worth at that point in the match. However, it could have made a major impact in that refs head and I think your post above is worthy of consideration and makes a lot of sense.

Referee's in my opinion, as a general rule should keep an eye on what their dicipline is doing for the game at any moment and throughout the match. If you've given several cautions - perhaps they're not so effective anymore like Spaceball is saying. I think it's important for the Referee to weigh this when making a decision to escalate to a send off or not. Still, it wouldn't be fair to the players to simply send off a player for a cautionable offense, if the actual foul couldn't ever really be viewed as a send-off. - These may be the trickiest situations for a referee. So it's most important to try and control a match with preventative refereeing before it reaches a point like this. Otherwise you could end up like the Russian referee in that Portugal - Netherlands match in WC06.

The timing of the situation was poor, Beckham's reaction was even worse. The contact wasn't much though, but the attempt was viscious and if it had truly connected it would certainly have endangered the safety of the opponent.

[macheath]

So... Beckham was sent off in the match he played this weekend.

Becks is Sent Off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVH33_XRClI)

Beckham was certainly stupid to do it, but was it really Serious Foul Play or Violent Conduct (if you decided he wasn't going for the ball). Or could the referee have simply given a caution?

What say you?

Also, what about the first "foul" that went uncalled, what do you think about that play?

Good no call on the initial tumble by Becks. There was contact from behind, but Beckham seemed to slow to time his play on the ball, defender ran into him--I thought there was more contact than some others did, but not enough to call a foul.

The red gets called, I assume, because it is so clearly retaliation. If that foul had taken place without a retaliation situation, it could be a yellow.

And knowing where the match was time-wise, and the number of cautions given, is pretty sobering. Don't think it changes my assessment of these two calls. You can't let a retaliation go unpunished, even if you've been screwing up before hand. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all of that...

[bluedevils]

In my book, this was a case of violent conduct, not serious foul play. SFP requires that the player be challenging for the ball. Beckham wasn't. The referee's quote as stated in this thread seems pretty accurate to me: "kicking an opponent from the backside with no chance of playing the ball."

Sometimes, players will get off with only a caution for a foul like that, but they shouldn't. Regardless of game circumstances/temperature/whatever, this sort of foul is dangerous to the safety of the opponent and it deserves a sendoff.

That said, I'm glad to see Beckham still has this sort of fire out on the pitch.

[MasterShake29]

As a non-ref, I think that was a yellow.

[bluedevils]

As a non-ref, I think that was a yellow.

Why? Because he didn't crack him 'that hard'? Because you can understand why he did it -- he was upset about a key decision not going his way? Because....??

There is no place in the beautiful game for that kind of foul. It is sad that many people seem to think it is not worth a sendoff.

This type of foul CAN cause injury. He was NOT attempting to play the ball -- not with the first leg that swept into back of the opponent's feet/legs, and not with the second leg that scissored in to do the same. You could see the anger on Beckham's face both during and after the foul. It was clearly retaliation, and he made no attempt to disguise his actions as a legitimate play for the ball.

Perhaps he wasn't trying to hurt the opponent, but this type of foul CAN and DOES cause injury, sometimes serious injury. He clearly seemed to be taking out his frustration with the referee on the opponent.

[CCSC_STRIKER20]

The card was the right call. Beckham chopped him down, it's as simple as that. And it was in a stupid place too. There was no reason to lunge in for a tackle like that. Rush of blood to the head I suppose. As a player I know what he went through, but as a referee I know that is a deserved red card.

[Alberto]

In my book, this was a case of violent conduct, not serious foul play. SFP requires that the player be challenging for the ball. Beckham wasn't. The referee's quote as stated in this thread seems pretty accurate to me: "kicking an opponent from the backside with no chance of playing the ball."

Sometimes, players will get off with only a caution for a foul like that, but they shouldn't. Regardless of game circumstances/temperature/whatever, this sort of foul is dangerous to the safety of the opponent and it deserves a sendoff.

That said, I'm glad to see Beckham still has this sort of fire out on the pitch.


Did Beckham challenge a player who had the ball? We should all be in agreement that he did. Then send off is given for serious foul play. If the ball had been passed and then Beckham scissor tackled him it would be violent conduct. Because the action took place on a player who did not have the ball.

[Alberto]

I think you have to take the match situation into account as well. I have not watched the incident (will look later, but it is not loading for some reason right now). However, if you look at the match report, there were 11 cautions. That is a ton for a match at this level. Additonally, this was the 5th card in 4 mintues:eek: . If the incident was borderline, it may have been a case where the temperature of the match just required it to be red. I would think when you are about to pull your 12th caution and 5th in 4 minutes, you have to realize you are not getting much for them.

On the other hand, he had just given 3 cautions in 3 minutes to Betis...so possibly he could have decided that he owed Betis (and there 7 yellows) the red rather than Madrid.

Like I said, I haven't seen the play, but I think this is certainly something you have to consider in the overall decision.

I felt the referee, having had occasion to watch portions of the match and in particular the last 13 minutes, was very fair and Real Madrid was upset because they felt they were not getting their "share" of calls being the home team. Also, Madrid was upset and frustrated because they have had a string of draws recently and felt they should be able to win a home match against a mid table opponent.

In my view the referee was correct in the calls and the cards. Just prior to the Beckham send off he gave Betis a free kick that was vehimently protested by Gutti the Madrid captain to the assistant referee which earrned him a well deserved caution for dissent.

[Alberto]

Referee's in my opinion, as a general rule should keep an eye on what their dicipline is doing for the game at any moment and throughout the match. If you've given several cautions - perhaps they're not so effective anymore like Spaceball is saying. I think it's important for the Referee to weigh this when making a decision to escalate to a send off or not. Still, it wouldn't be fair to the players to simply send off a player for a cautionable offense, if the actual foul couldn't ever really be viewed as a send-off. - These may be the trickiest situations for a referee. So it's most important to try and control a match with preventative refereeing before it reaches a point like this. Otherwise you could end up like the Russian referee in that Portugal - Netherlands match in WC06.


I disagree. In the case of Ivanov's handling of the Portugal Netherlands match, other than missing the send off to the Dutch player that caused Cristiano Ronaldo's injury, he issued a caution, every caution and send off was deserved. Both those teams came to fight and not play soccer. Under those circumstances there was not much Ivanov could have done.

[bluedevils]

Did Beckham challenge a player who had the ball? We should all be in agreement that he did. Then send off is given for serious foul play.

The requirement is more than just 'the opponent had the ball'. What if he had punched the opponent in the face with his fist? Is that a challenge for the ball? No, it isn't. It is violent conduct. So was Beckham's foul.

If the ball had been passed and then Beckham scissor tackled him it would be violent conduct. Because the action took place on a player who did not have the ball.

Even if using this as a criterion, which by itself isn't quite right, it's not that simple. At what point does the player cease to 'have the ball'? If the scissor occurs at the exact moment the player passes it to someone else, or a split-second later, or a split-second before. Where do you draw the line? Possession isn't the only consideration, anyway.

If you wanted, you could hang your SFP argument on Law 12, IFAB Decision 4: "A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play." However, I'd argue that this foul did not meet the requirements for a tackle.

From the Additional Instructions at the back of the laws:
"Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not. A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."

The crux of the matter is, was Beckham challenging for the ball? My feeling is a definite 'no.' The opponent whom he fouled was in possession of the ball, but this does NOT automatically qualify Beckham's challenge as a challenge for the ball.

We have been receiving guidance over the past couple/few that USSF wants more ugly fouls against opponents punished as VC instead of SFP. In some of the examples, I have disagreed as I feel many of these truly are SFP, not VC. But in this case, I feel it really is a case of VC.

[gosellit]

The requirement is more than just 'the opponent had the ball'. What if he had punched the opponent in the face with his fist? Is that a challenge for the ball? No, it isn't. It is violent conduct. So was Beckham's foul.



Even if using this as a criterion, which by itself isn't quite right, it's not that simple. At what point does the player cease to 'have the ball'? If the scissor occurs at the exact moment the player passes it to someone else, or a split-second later, or a split-second before. Where do you draw the line? Possession isn't the only consideration, anyway.

If you wanted, you could hang your SFP argument on Law 12, IFAB Decision 4: "A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play." However, I'd argue that this foul did not meet the requirements for a tackle.

From the Additional Instructions at the back of the laws:
"Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not. A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."

The crux of the matter is, was Beckham challenging for the ball? My feeling is a definite 'no.' The opponent whom he fouled was in possession of the ball, but this does NOT automatically qualify Beckham's challenge as a challenge for the ball.

We have been receiving guidance over the past couple/few that USSF wants more ugly fouls against opponents punished as VC instead of SFP. In some of the examples, I have disagreed as I feel many of these truly are SFP, not VC. But in this case, I feel it really is a case of VC.

Totally agree. I'll bet you went to a Pro Clinic last year. In ours, Esse spent an entire session discussing the points you stated above, with video examples. repped

[intechpc]

Bluedevil, you nailed it. This is absolutely VC, there is no play for the ball at all. Beckham's sole purpose in this move was to take out the opponent and that was very very clear. As you noted SFP requires a challenge for the ball, not just the ball being in posession or playing distance. No such challenge existed here. Man, this hot head is coming to the US to play for the Galaxy???

[USSF REF]

Bluedevil, you nailed it. This is absolutely VC, there is no play for the ball at all. Beckham's sole purpose in this move was to take out the opponent and that was very very clear. As you noted SFP requires a challenge for the ball, not just the ball being in posession or playing distance. No such challenge existed here. Man, this hot head is coming to the US to play for the Galaxy???

I am sure Beckham will see red a couple time in the USA where we hack the hell out of everyone. Plus Beckham will be a target for every enforcer in the league.

Of course Becks could get off the hook for some things if MLS has secret meetings with the refs telling them not to send off the $250 million man. But that is a conspiracy theory at its worst.

My take on this foul is that it had to be a red, unfortunetly (I like Beckham as a player). He reacted out of retaliation to take out the opponent. I debate with myself whether or not Becks thought he was going for the ball, he may have gotten so angry that he thought he was lunging in for the ball, but he misjudged the distance and decided he would try to swipe out the opponent also for good measure. However based solely on what we can see - it appears that Becks wasn't playing for the ball. Thus it should be violent conduct and he must go off.

Going back to the first offense, Becks must have really thought he was being pushed and got the short end of the stick by a no call to react that way. Maybe there was something more to it... It looked like a no call, but its possible there was some legit contact. All in all, I think the referee makes the correct decision - even if the contact was so lacking in the foul that it appears like a red may be harsh. You have to know that this kind of behavior is begging for a send off, regardless of the result of the action.