I didn't see the video at all just the still further up the thread. But as described, to wit after the ball had gone out of play the player deliberately shouldered his opponent in order to cause him to fall on the track, this is VC. It certainly cannot be SFP as they are not challenging for the ball as it is out of play. Now reckless vs excessive force. In this case for me it comes down as to whether you feel the offender intended to send him onto the track or just made a dumb late challenge. Again, as described, this is intentional not reckless.
I wish I could see this video. the discussion is good and I think I could learn from watching it. I see no problem in the OP post of a video and questioning a call off the field of play has clearly generated significant discussion here which seems educational. I think the 2 RC off for the season rule MUST be changed with DOGSO foul rules. 2 VC or SFP, sure. that being said, we have enough pressure not to call DOGSO as it is, we don't need another reason not to call it.
Trying to weigh in without repeating what others have said. I see a lot of similarity between a "simple" push that puts the player into the track and the simple push that puts a player into the boards. The location of the contact has a lot to do with how we punish it. Also, we need to be aware of how much of a flash point that can be. It's the players responsibility to understand the field conditions and play with corresponding care. I didn't see the video so, like many others, I'm making comments like I used to ref my games (yes -- blindly).
Well.....sort of similar. In this case the players and the ball were all on the field at the the time of the push (in contrast to my recollection of the OP where all three were off the field of play). The push was more flagrant in this video, and the play occurred in a professional game. Definitely a foul and likely UB, but probably not red here.
From this angle you can't tell if there was a push, an elbow, a reckless charge or anything of the sort by the red player. I'm left wondering why the white player even made a challenge for the ball which was clearly out of play. In the process of doing so he put himself off balance, and this whole thing might have been his fault.
You can see the red player lower his shoulder, and then the white player goes flying. Considering the AR was right there, and didn't seem to hesitate in telling the CR what to do, I think you have to assume that the red player "charged" his opponents chest with his shoulder. There was no reason for the player (who clearly knew the ball was out of play) to make any contact, so any contact would be a yellow. The reaction of the white player (going flying) makes me think the contact was excessive, and his obvious anger and trying to go after the player make me think it wasn't embellishment (or he is a very good actor). I think you could give a yellow, but that a red is a reasonable decision.
I guess begs the question of which player you think made the contact.... I guess I can follow what has been said in defending/explaining the call, but my initial reaction is that the red player is doing no more than shielding the ball and that the contact is initiated by the player who went down. I could easily see this as a no-call, but, as noted, the AR was literally right there with a much better angle of the contact, so maybe he saw something additional that I don't in this video Digressing slightly, but seeing the angry reaction of player who went down and thinking back to what it was like to be a high school player, my first question would be if there is any history here between these players, whether in this game or in prior games. As an aside, it is interesting to see the manner in which the AR physically intervened to prevent the potential retaliation, and that the AR arguably took a push from the white player having put himself in that position by this type of intervention.
Maybe you can see that, but I can't. But supposing it's true, the white player is the one with the incentive for acting as though the ball is still in play, and I wouldn't blame the red player for making what would be a fair charge if it actually were because he has no way of knowing, at game speed, whether or not the ball will be called out of play. The fact that the white player is off balance is a major contributing factor for his going down.
I'll sum up what most people think: 1. The camera angle provided cannot prove the referees in this case to be clearly wrong 2. Most of us, if only watching the angle provided by the camera, would give a yellow card. 3. The AR did an excellent job preventing retaliation
Haha. I don't think so. Milton has Michael and Gabriel (Jibril in the Quran) arraying the hosts against Satan to the sound of trumpets and clarions, but I don't think he actually toots the horn. I think the line is something like "Gabriel bids forth the archangel's trumpet". Said archangel isn't named. Because People don't read Milton carefully, is only really in English tradition. It's a heavenly HR job description thing. Gabriel's main gig is a heavenly messenger in the bible, usually to prophets and Mary, although he is also in charge of the garden, serpents, the powers, Cherubim, and a couple other things. But he ain't no Louis Armstrong of heaven. That gig for him doesn't show up anywhere until about 1450 through Armenia, probably from contact with Islam. since Israfil isn't in the bible, they gave Gabriel double duty. So Israfeel, or Israfil, gets the gig by default. Its been a while since I read the Quran, but I'm pretty sure he isn't there either, but in a Hadith or something.
Yellow's to both players. Just because the track is right there should have no bearing at all on whether or not it is red or yellow. The white player is simply a hot head, no half way decent player in their right mind would try and run that ball down and get in between the AR and the red player in hopes of getting that ball. I would argue the white player knew what he was doing as soon as he got pushed.
Ok, perhaps my Lit classes are too far removed. Was just an expression added to the end of a post where I found myself agreeing with an eclectic cross section of posters. Enjoy the rest of your Labor Day weekend, and thanks for the lesson.
So if a player fouls an opponent into a goal post and breaks teeth, it's a yellow? The track is a factor because it is the presence of the track that makes this foul capable of endangering the opponent.
+1 The track doesn't ipao facto make it a red any more than the goal posts, the restraining wall, or the camera man, would -- but the presence of the track (or the goal post, etc.) is clearly a factor th referee must consider in evaluating the situation.
I appreciated your reference. It made me chuckle and it's why I commented in the first place. And you got me looking, and apparently Israfil translates from Arabic to Hebrew as Raphael, so you aren't alone in screwing up the job assignments. Apparently those Armenians long ago screwed it up and passed the error on to Milton and the rest of us.
Agree with yellow to both. Red player gives him a little push but it's mostly the momentum of the white player that sends him to the ground. White player totally overreacts. Yellow to each for game management in high school. In college I'm probably not even showing a card....just PA'ing both. AR does a great job preventing further idiocy from hot head.