Liverpool : PSV [R] SFP Send Off

[MassachusettsRef]

I think this is a decent case study to put forth because the game situation is pretty clear and we have pretty good video available.

The situation is that Liverpool was up 3-0 from the first leg, which was in Eindhoven. Effectively, the return leg was meaningless unless PSV could somehow get three goals. The score was 0-0 in the 64th minute when PSV defender Dirk Marcellis commits the tackle you'll see below. There had been no real flashpoints throughout the game and only one yellow card, late in the first half, to speak of. The video below is 4 minutes long; the incident is covered from 00:40-01:10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moWz1SwabaU

Obviously, the analysts disagree with the call (as have many news accounts). Yes, I know that we often dismiss commentators as not knowing anything, but the general consensus, at least coming out of England, seems to be that the call was very harsh. Moreover, the reaction from Marcellis was one of genuine shock (you'll often see faux shock when a player is shown red, but I truly think he couldn't believe it) and you could even see a bit of bemusement on one of the Liverpool player's faces. Basically, I don't think any of the players expected red.

That said, if it's a red card offence, none of the above matters and Rosetti had absolutely no doubt about his call. The ball was bouncing, but the tackle was pretty forceful and with a straight leg and studs fully exposed and it caught the Liverpool player in the ankle as he was jumping pretty high. I think that, in a vacuum, it's a red card. I believe that some people might be willing to excuse it because it caused no serious injury (the fouled player immediately got up), because of the scoreline and because the match wasn't dirty at all. I personally don't see any of those as mitigating factors, and think Rosetti did the right thing.

I see this tackle a bit like the Mastroeni tackle against Italy in the WC (the second red card of that game); it's supposed to be a red, but often referees let players off with a yellow if the circumstances of the game allow. Larrionda was never going to let Mastroeni off since he had already shown one red card to Italy; but I think most people would expect Rosetti to let Marcellis off in this case because of the circumstances.

So what do people think? Should it have one been a yellow because of the match circumstances and the result? Or do you think it's only a yellow, regardless? Or was a red the right call?

[bluedevils]

It all depends on your philosophy.
Philosophy 1 is, a red card challenge should receive a red card no matter the particulars of the situation.
Philosophy 2 is, consider the particulars of the situation and decide if the game and/or the player needs a red card at that point.

I've heard arguments in favor of Philosophy 2 many times. Usually it is with respect to cautions rathern than sendoffs. But if it is valid to consider cautions in that manner, then it should be valid to consider sendoffs in the same manner.

It seems to me that we receive mixed signals as to which philosophy is appropriate.

[bluedevils]

I see this tackle a bit like the Mastroeni tackle against Italy in the WC
I agree; there are several elements of each challenge that are quite similar. My own opinion after watching this challenge just once is that it seemed a bit worse than the Mastro challenge from WC06.

[NHRef]

One question to ask is, had that contact been on the other leg what could have happened??

The result of the tackle was fairly harmless, however its because it hit the foot up in the air so the hit foot just sort of flies out of the way and down comes the player. Had that challenge been 6 inches further back it was at the right height to hit the knee of the leg planted on the ground, that could have caused serious damage.

I think at that point in the match, the ref needs to be on the lookout for members of the "loosing" team to start with some cheap shots. The CR in this case may have decided to stop it before it really gets going.

It was a studs exposed challenge that would have been well over the ball. At the same time, one goal for any card you pull should be to either regain or keep control of the game.

[ref47]

i tossed a guy from my men's senior am match last night. score 0-0 about 1 hour in. midfield. yellow player comes up behind just as the blue player released a pass. yellow give blue a slight shove which causes him to stumble. he regains balance, whirles about and takes a swing (punch) at yellow. misses. rc to blue. yc to yellow for match control purposes.

this case. the red deserves a red regardless of scoreline, time, prior events, etc.

[Ref Flunkie]

I'll be honest, I'd say yellow in any case. I'm sure this is why I will never be a National referee, but I don't think it matters what would have happened if it had hit another part of the body or if it had hit the leg that was planted....you need to evaluate what did happen. The ball was bouncing, he slid and tried to tackle the ball that was off the ground. I don't think he was overly late and I don't feel the tackle put the attacker into any real danger. Yes the studs were up, but again, it hit a foot that was in the air. Just my opinion on seeing the Youtube video.


As for my philosophy, I think I take the temperature of the game into account on tackles that are "orange". If I feel somethis is a red, then it is a red.

[ManiacalClown]

Looking at the tackle then and now, I think you could certainly see WHY this was considered to be SFP, but I'd have to agree that the circumstances probably didn't warrant a red here. There was, what, one yellow card shown in the entire match? It certainly wasn't particularly chippy from what I saw of it. It is true that when a team is losing that badly late on, you start keeping an eye out for rash, malicious challenges, but even then, it really didn't seem to be malicious. Certainly worthy of a yellow in any case due to the sheer recklessness, but I'm not convinced that match control necessitated sending him off for it.

[intechpc]

I've waited to weigh in on this until I had seen the full match. For me this was not a yellow, however without being on the field I really can't say for sure. This challenge strikes me as the type that probably looked a lot worse live on the field at full speed than it does with TV angles and slow-mo. With the foot that high and the studs out making contact I can understand the call. Also it's hard to say if maybe the referee was detecting things getting chippy and wanted to cut it off early. I guess that while I think it should have been a yellow, I'm ok with the red.

[macheath]

After watching the video, I don't have a problem with the red. Studs are up, recklessly coming in, ball is away when the PSV player makes contact. If something warrants a red, I don't think you start modifying it based on what else has been happening in the match. And English TV commentators don't think a card is deserved unless somebody gets crippled, and sometimes not even then. :)

[jacoismyhero]

After watching the video, I don't have a problem with the red. Studs are up, recklessly coming in, ball is away when the PSV player makes contact. If something warrants a red, I don't think you start modifying it based on what else has been happening in the match. And English TV commentators don't think a card is deserved unless somebody gets crippled, and sometimes not even then. :)


I completely agree.

[bluedevils]

...the circumstances probably didn't warrant a red here. There was, what, one yellow card shown in the entire match? It certainly wasn't particularly chippy from what I saw of it.

Some people would say this is precisely why the sendoff WAS warranted. I.e. the tackle was out of context for this game. If this sort of challenge had occurred 2 or 3 times, or more, earlier in the match, and the players seemed to accept it as a caution, then a caution for this particular occurrence may have been appropriate. But in a relatively clean game (I did NOT watch this match so am speaking generally), a tackle like this sticks out like a sore thumb. There is no place for a tackle like that in ANY match, but especially in a match that supposedly was devoid of harsh challenges.

[Ref Flunkie]

After watching the video, I don't have a problem with the red. Studs are up, recklessly coming in, ball is away when the PSV player makes contact. If something warrants a red, I don't think you start modifying it based on what else has been happening in the match. And English TV commentators don't think a card is deserved unless somebody gets crippled, and sometimes not even then. :)

Agree if it is CLEAR something warrants a red, then it should be a red.

And may I ask a realllllly stupid question? When did "studs up" become the be all-end all of nasty play (seriously asking)? I think even that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis where sometimes it is not as bad as other times.

[falcon.7]

And may I ask a realllllly stupid question? When did "studs up" become the be all-end all of nasty play (seriously asking)? I think even that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis where sometimes it is not as bad as other times.

Not sure when it came about, but I believe the rationale is that with metal studs, going in "studs up" signficantly increases the chance for injury. The human body does not enjoy being insulted by sharp metal objects. Tackling with the studs showing shows at the very least an indifference for safety.

Even if something warrants a red, there are ways to avoid sending-off a player and still maintain match control and fairness. There are times when a send-off would ruin a perfectly good match, and both sides are willing to settle for a caution. That said, if a player rams their boot into someone's throat (see Women's World Cup) going for a ball, they've made it clear they don't want to play anymore.

Cards are used to punish more severe offenses and maintain a level of safety and control. I think if you limit yourself to "this must be a red, this must be a caution", you will find that you show cards which may be unnecessary. If you have a beautiful, clean game with few fouls and no problems whatsoever, and in the 88th minute a player commits a serious foul, he's sorry and the player gets right back up, everyone is okay with a caution and there are no hard feelings, just an error in judgement, are you going to send him off and ruin this game and the next for him?

You must administed fair justice, and sometimes giving a card for something that may, in the strictest sense, warrant a card, isn't fair to the player or the game. Just my opinion, but then again I'm not a FIFA.

[macheath]

Agree if it is CLEAR something warrants a red, then it should be a red.

And may I ask a realllllly stupid question? When did "studs up" become the be all-end all of nasty play (seriously asking)? I think even that needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis where sometimes it is not as bad as other times.

Well, I guess I meant when the studs are up and hit the other player, especially in a sliding tackle at high speed, as this one was. I was taught that "studs up" isn't automatically a foul or send-off, but it raises the stakes considerably, and you would have to justify why it isn't a foul if contact is made. It isn't the be-all and end-all, but it is an additional and important element in considering a tackle as reckless or with excessive force. And, as cited below, the Advice does single it out.

The sacred texts...

LOTG, Law 12, Decision 4: A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Advice, on Law 12, Part C, "Serious Foul Play and Violent Conduct"

Referees must be especially vigilant regarding offenses which are too severe for a caution and which include one or more of the following additional elements: ...One or both feet, with cleats showing, above the ground...

and 12.33, SERIOUS FOUL PLAY. It is also serious foul play if a player commits any tackle which endangers the safety of an opponent [emphasis in original].

[bluedevils]

...in the 88th minute a player commits a serious foul, he's sorry and the player gets right back up, everyone is okay with a caution and there are no hard feelings, just an error in judgement, are you going to send him off and ruin this game and the next for him?

I understand the overall point of your post, but I felt the need to pick at this one part. The person who ruined this game and the next is the player who committed the red-cardable foul, NOT the referee.

[Footballer]

I was watching this live and I thought it was a yellow. But after this past weekend at the pro clinic watching clips, I have to reverse it to a red. What sold me now is that it was with excessive force and speed in which he went in. That could really ruin the player's career right there with that tackle.

[Wreave]

Frankly MassRef covered my thoughts quite well.

However, this was a straight-leg, stud-up, knee-high tackle to the ankle. That's a red.

I've thought about a few different ways to justify it as a yellow, not least of which is that no one was injured. However, yellow doesn't work for me.

I'm most concerned by the announcer's comment "hopefully it will be rescinded". Aren't the LOTG clear that a referee's decision concerning the facts of play are final? Would they really rescind an SFP red card that they thought should have been a yellow?