An instance from the Polish league today. https://streamable.com/6ckxe Clearly the player has no thought of going in for the ball, and the speed makes it look bad. But the way he goes in is not really endangering the opponent and everything looks bad because of the speed - but does it also play the part? Clearly, the referee and VAR thought it's a yellow, so two referees (probably more, with AR and 4th possibly chiming in) agreed on that. Thoughts from here? Agree or disagree with the yellow?
What a 20 second clip. There looked to be four or five fouls or almost fouls before the "big one". It's very reckless. It's very tactical. Is it excessive force? I'd lean towards no. I guess it's a similar amount of force that we've seen with a couple Premier League clips that I'd argue should have been SFP for charging, but those involved serious contact with the head. With the location of the foul and the fact the offender had no intention other than to clean out the opponent, I think a red could be justified. It reminds me of a collision between a keeper and attacker in an adult game I had last night. It was outside the penalty area and the keeper collides at high speed. It was orange for DOGSO. It was orange for reckless/SFP. Does that make a red? My center said no.
Too much speed and distance for me and the force used appeared to be more than a professional foul. I have SFP but I don't referee in Poland.
Well, it’s a great example of how a foul right in front of the benches can be a flash point. I have yellow with a hint of orange. Sure, intent is tactical but also to send a message, but force, although greater than necessary, is not endangering. I don’t think one could be faulted by going red, but I’m a caution and epic AC here.
Since he makes zero attempt to play the ball and the ball isn’t present, how can it be SFP? Most competitons and most matches, I have an easy red for VC. I could be convinced that on rare occasion a yellow might be more appropriate, but this doesn’t seem like such an occasion.
Speed, Intent, Aggressive, Opportunity to play the ball - at least 4 of the 6 SIAPOA criteria are met. I'm guessing from the preceeding challenges, atmosphere is also met. Position is the only one not checked. I don't know what the criteria are in Poland, but in any game I do this is a red card.
It probably would have helped if the referee had blown the whistle on one of the previous challenges.
Anyone see why the GK got yellow? Guessing for coming over for the confrontation, but I never really saw him. And what was the R communicating to the benches at the end of it all? Cheers, Mi3ke
With the help of replay, Look where the defender's eyes are. Textbook form if you're a DB in our game of football, not so good in soccer. Clearly no attempt to play the ball, and I think the defender is conceding that he will be dismissed from the game so he's probably thinking he'd better make it a good one. In instances where players think they are taking a card for the team, you'd better oblige them or else the other team is going take your inaction as a cue to step things up.
And so since IMO he was using "excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball", Why not VC? Look at that 2nd replay, he clearly has absolutely no interest in "challenging for the ball", he is only concerned with sending him into flying into the touch.