A pitch invader ran onto the field during Chelsea's match against Juventus. Sam Kerr, a forward for Chelsea, bodied him as he walked around the field with security on their way. She received a yellow card for this. Do y'all believe this was the correct call? Sam Kerr could run through a brick wall I'm not convinced otherwise... pic.twitter.com/J6vQTRXHv6— Kelsey Trainor (@ktrain_11) December 8, 2021
She either deserved a red card or nothing. So, no, yellow card was not the right call if it was awarded for the action/behavior we see on the clip. We've had this debate several times after high profile incidents like this, though it's been a long while. Violence against pitch invaders is still violent conduct so it is still, in theory and if the laws are taken literally, a red card. That said, if players' safety or security is in danger, I don't think any referee with any common sense would punish a player who felt it was necessary to take matters into their own hands. Professional players are going to have a lot of leeway in situations where an unknown person gets past security and is in physical proxmity to them. The problem for Kerr, as I see it here, is that any danger looks to have passed or was in the process of passing. He was leaving. So the hit is gratuitous and unnecessary. So now the idea of this simply being violent conduct creeps back into the picture. There's no real argument she had to do this. She chose to do this. I could come down on either side of the fence here. A lot would depend, for me, on the context of the match and the context of this invasion (so seeing it through start to finish). But, based simply on what we see in the video, you can't argue with "red card" being the right answer. I imagine the referee knew that, but felt foolish doing it, so invented the middle approach punishment that, honestly, has absolutely no basis in the Laws here. All that said, what I find most interesting about all this is that #8 of the opposing team immediately starts appealing for Kerr to be sent off. I mean, it can be the correct call. It still doesn't have to be a call that your opponents are appealing for.
Arguably, should've easily been a red card. Players should not be taking matters into their own hands like this.
Here's 400+ posts on the topic (and more, as I'm sure it went off the rails at some point--I only skimmed the first two pages) and a trip down memory lane: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/k...-match-defends-himself-gets-red-card.1870965/
My read on this one is red for violent conduct. If he was actively coming at her then give her a pass. But, players physically confronting pitch invaders who aren't directly threatening them is a risk to everyone on the field if the invader turns out to be armed, or drunk, or high, or just plain crazy and becomes aggressive and starts to fight. Let security handle it (unless self defense is necessary).
Among the many angles to consider here is that this was a Chelsea home match where she, almost certainly, leveled a home supporter. You won't find this anywhere in the Laws, but in a situation like this that makes it a little less likely to me that a red card is necessary. Because it's eliminating the idea that the home team players might retaliate to protect one of their supporters. There are a ton of "what ifs" and variables to incidents like this, but I just wanted to highlight that one as the type of factor/context that I do think matters when coming to the most sensible decision. The yellow card truly is baffling, though. I'm not sure what is going through a UEFA-level referee's mind to get to that outcome other than feeling internal pressure but thinking the red card is foolish. A yellow is more foolish, though. You either do nothing or you send her off. What is a yellow accomplishing?
Is there a space that exists where she could have decided that the level of brutality didn't reach violent? That's all I can come up with.
Not in my view. Particularly since the same action against an opponent would be red. The threshold for excessive force/brutality against a third party has to be lower. Unless we view the third party as a legitimate target (e.g., a threat) in which case no card should be necessary. I mean, if she wants to write it up as "unsporting behavior, lack of respect," it's not like the IFAB Police are going to come get her. There's really nothing in our game involving physical contact that isn't, ultimately, a judgment call (shhh, don't tell anyone who deals with VAR!). But, c'mon. If the act here isn't violent conduct against a fan, then what is? I'm fine with the arguments for looking the other way and doing nothing, as I made clear. But affirmatively calling this unsporting but not violent? That opens up a can of worms for a whole bunch of other actions.
Separate from discussion of sanction, the video looks to me like something he said set her off. Maybe there should be a pitch-invader air-raid drill, get the players out of the way of free radicals and boost safety all around. #JustStayOffThePitch
I had the impression that Kerr thought he was being disrespectful to the game with his galavanting on the field like he owned the thing and when she saw security closing she wanted to give him a knock for good measure. But, that's just me assuming motivation.
Each case is different and I’m in the just look the other way camp on this one. A send off isn’t necessary for match management in this situation. Any sort of dissent from the other team is of the opportunistic variety of trying to get the match 10v11 rather than being aggrieved by an offense committed against them or one of their supporters. There isn’t going to be any sort of escalation or retaliation if this goes unpunished. If this was a sucker punch to the face, then send her off. But I just don’t see this offense rising above the absolutely can not be ignored threshold. Splitting the baby with a yellow card certainly is foolish.
Yup. Exactly. You said my own thoughts better than me. This is where I am. All of it, really. That said, Kerr would be (and is) really lucky. Change any of the variables just a bit and this is an easy red card. The fact that she's doing it as he leaves, rather than early on, is the biggest problem for her defense.
Parent on the touchline when this is the first foul called in the entire game: COME ON REF CALL IT BOTH WAYS
To punish this at all is completely short-sided. Under the laws, it is a red or nothing. Regardless, it should always be nothing. This is the players' work place. If someone invades the pitch, he/she is invading the players' office. It is as if someone pushed through a barrier to get into your office. If that happens, you are fair to assume that they are there to hurt you. A crime is in process. The laws of the game are not designed for nor should they be applied to criminal activity. All she did is knock the criminal down so that security could get to him. Security still failed. Players must be able to protect themselves. Anything short of lethal force is completely justified in this situation. Anyone thinking the LotG apply here is highly mistaken.
You don't know he was leaving. He was walking a way from security. He was still near the middle of the pitch, still near players. He had, at a minimum, the AR to pass. He had a heavy jacket and there was no way of knowing if he had a weapon or not. Security had already failed to protect the players. Criminal activity can go from innocent to violent very quickly. Don't place that burden on players.
It will be interesting to see what, if anything, we hear from the powers that be. Players should get away from these knuckleheads, not interact with them. Sam moved to him and initiated contact. Leagues don’t want players involved. USB cabin be a pretty generic bucket. I wouldn’t be surprised if the powers that be supported the YC—not wanting the player sent off and imbalancing the game while at the same time not condoning the player’s actions. USB may be a bit of a stretch, but I don’t agree that it is wholly unsupportable in Law.
Reasonable self-defense for me. Could Kerr have walked away earlier? Probably. But the guy starts to approach her at the end of the video. Once that happens, the threat increases. It's not like she slugged the guy or proceeded to jump him and throw MMA fists at him after the shoulder tackle. She neutralized the guy and that was that. I realize there's a fine line here, and my work as a school administrator is clouding my judgment. But for me, any pitch invader is a danger until neutralized. What if the guy was acting until he was close to Kerr and then brandished a knife or a gun? You can't assume any sort of intent other than sinister here. It's the world in which we live.
The laws simply do not apply. If he had a weapon, can the player defend him/herself? If he touches or swings at a player, can the player defend him/herself? The laws state: In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible. There is no exception for self defense. When I was 12, I played in the Pike's Peak tournament. At one point during the match, golf ball sized hail came from nowhere. Immediately, the pitch emptied as players ran for cover. The laws state that it is a cautionable offense for: deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission Should every player have been cautioned or can we agree there are situations, such as criminal activity, to which the laws simply do not apply?
Holy cow, this is the first time I've ever agreed with Sport Billy. Monica Seles was stabbed in the back by a fan at a tournament. The Chicago White Sox first base coach was jumped and beaten by two fans on the field. I look at this like the exception to American law that allows you defend yourself against someone invading your own home- the fan has zero rights as soon as he or she (but lets be honest, it's always he) invades the pitch. None. I don't care if he looks like he's drunk and having a lark. He's in the process of committing a crime, and the fact that he has already committed a crime is enough for me to believe that he is capable of committing another crime. If I am refereeing this game, I don't punish Kerr at all, and I spend about 10-15 minutes bawling out the match supervisor for a woeful lack of security that endangered the safety of me and the players.
I think we can all agree the dude deserved it. Again, my main issue is the inability to read the future here. Meaning, Kerr does not not know what physically confronting the jerk will cause him to do. What if he got up and started striking her with the phone or had a knife in his pocket or something. If he did this and other players now had to come step in to help her, the level of risk to everyone goes way up. If this were in the USA, you could never presume someone isn't armed... You just don't know. And in London knife crime is a reality. There is an inherent risk to escalating this confrontation which is why this should be discouraged. In this case, based on this video, I think the safest way to protect herself was to ignore the idiot. But, based solely on outcomes, this is a whole lot of nothing. If we're penalizing outcomes here it should be nothing. If we're judging based on risk potentials and escalated risk of danger to the participants, this is probably something to deal with.
I know this is refereeing sub-forum and you all, guys, are correctly discussing how the situation should have been handled within the frame of the rules, but can I ask you all to answer this: is there anyone who didn't feel, even for just a moment, an inner satisfaction at what Kerr did? Maybe, just to feel guilty a moment after and to consider it wrong upon rationalization, but could anyone of you really repress an istinctive sense of joyful elation at the scene? This is not to say that the discussion you're carrying on is not good and fair. It's just to say that in my opinion what happened is an one-of that we all would like to turn a blind eye on, with secret satisfaction.
But for me, it wasn't a "he deserved it" satisfaction. It was being proud that a player, having realized security had failed to protect her, acted to protect herself and others.