Well, if I was the dugout, I'd definitely consider that an abusive gesture... But more seriously, I would think that should just be a caution. Maybe it was a second yellow and we just didn't see it displayed?
seriously was making this exact thread right now. wtf was that idiot thinking?! must've been a long time since his last goal. trying to justify the red myself.
Just saw the same video and wondered if there would be a thread about this exact question - reason for send-off. Didn't look like there were any, but could you send him off for endangering the safety of other substitutes that were sitting inside the structure?
Shockingly, there are full match highlights up as well, incident in question ~7 min in: That goal made it 3-1 for Riolo Terme (yellow) over Ponticelli (red / blue). I think (though I'm not 100% sure) the game was played on Ponticelli's home field, so the goalscorer was doing damage to the opponent's field.
If you can get a Red Card for throwing a dog by the neck, then you can get a Red Card for destroying a dugout. The same principle applies: You just can't do that.
The official Polish translation of the Laws of the Game translated violent conduct directly as "behaves agressively, fircely". I think it'd be easier to sell under this translation than the original language of 'violent conduct'?
To answer your question, no I don't think you can justify a straight red with the language of the laws as it is. It clearly says that aggression must be against another person. A dugout is not a person. And no, the fact that his teammates were sitting in the dugout does not count; his aggression was clearly not towards them. I personally think this should have been a yellow card, and then if the league determined that the action warranted suspension, it should take care of that afterwards.
Could be a foul or abusive act, especially if the opponents logo was on the enclosure sidewall. This is also inappropriate behavior in the technical area. Consider this, what if he had used a metal folding chair instead? That to me would be a clear red. I don't see much difference here. A violent act is a violent act. edit - relooking at the video he aims directly for a logo or piece of signage on the enclosure sidewall. If that signage has anything to do with the opposing team then it's a good case for a foul and abusive act.
How about he's indirectly committing violent conduct on whomever owns the dugout by damaging that person's property. Does that work?
Another question - as the referee, do you allow the game to continue or do you require the damage be cleaned up in some way? More directly, has the player created a hazardous playing condition?
I wasn't going to comment. Not because I don't think you could get creative and find a justification (how about leaving the field + unsporting behavior?), but mainly because my instinct was--unlike the dog situation--there really isn't a need to get creative and find a justification. The red seems like overkill to me. The embarrassment, the caution and the bill that he would get from the home team seems like it would be punishment enough to me. But then this sentence caught my eye: Strictly speaking, this argument is irrelevant. Because he's a player and not a substitute or team personnel and we don't send off players for "irresponsible behavior." But in a practical sense, if anyone on the bench had done this, you'd send him off with no hesitation. So maybe the same should apply to a player who commits such an act? It's a stretch and it falls outside the literal reading of the Laws, but it's something to think about. Of course, the punishment for sending off a player is steeper, since now the team plays a man down. I still think I come down on the side of a yellow card and I'm nearly certain that's what I'd have given if this happened in a game I was reffing before I saw this video. But, with some thought, a red doesn't seem as crazy as it first might (maybe that just means too much thought is a bad thing!).
What if he had grabbed the corner flag and broke it across his knee - that'd only be a yellow, right?
There are some really creative refs on this board. What's the point of trying to find a technical way of kicking a player out of the game? Yellow is fine. As @MassachusettsRef likes to say, keep in mind that if you're willing to give the first yellow for this, you need to be willing to give the 2nd yellow as well (in this case, I think the players wouldn't have much to complain about for yellow - 1st, 2nd or otherwise).
No one in the "abusive gesture" camp? You guys don't consider destroying equipment an abusive gesture? In 2009 Luciano Emilio, while playing for DC United was subbed out. He got to the bench and kicked some water bottles in frustration. Terry Vaughn gave him the red. He had a yellow for a foul three minutes earlier, but this was straight red. Not sure if this game report is based on the Vaughn's report, but it lists the reason for the red as "Abuse".
Creative or not, any match I do no longer has this knucklehead in it. I'm happy to be over turned later, and then I'll do the same the next time. Common sense, good of the game, game disrepute, Law 18, in dealing with the violence, take your pick. This is simple violent intimidation of the opposing team players. Anyone want to challenge for a header with this idiot? I thought not. This is not soccer. Law 12, Violent Conduct towards an Opponent, and for those in the USA our ATR have this covered. For me, not sending him off is being creative...
Can anyone find a match report? I don't think this has anything to do with the dugout. The CR is clearly pointing towards the far end of the field. Not the dugout. Not the bench as if "your off" Could he have screamed something that was OFFINABUS when he scored?
No, I think the point is probably just in the direction of the locker room. This looks like a "you must leave" point and not a point to the location of the infraction.
Really? If he had beaten his chest after he scored, would you send him off too? This isn't directed at any opposing players, no matter how much you want to insist it is.
Sorry, in any YOUTH game that I do, heck even in most adult leagues I do, he's gone. I'll write it up as AL "offensive or abusive language or gesture" Trashing a piece of equipment owned by the club, especially if he was a visiting team member, he's gone. As Campbed said, he's gone, don't need him, beyond game disrepute (which yes I know is a yellow), but he's gone, see ya. let the league deal with any suspension.
Red was shown with the right hand, so the point came with the left. If he had pointed at the bench, he would have had to point at the player, which is unnecessarily confrontational. I see this just as the leave point.