If you look very closely, it appears the fourth official (in green, standing next to the AR) was having a laugh about it or was at least bemused by the whole situation.
I think my posts here (and the ones from 10 years ago, in fact) convey my opinion pretty clearly. That said, a few quick points: 1) Everything you say in your first post above about "the player's work space" could then be applied to technical staff entering illegally. Or substitutes. Or league personnel. You just created, out of thin air, the license to assault any individual aside from the other 21 players and the referee. 2) The idea that Kerr was acting "to protect herself and others" doesn't appear to pass the laugh test. The other 21 players didn't seem like they were in fear of their safety. I mean, if they did, why didn't ALL of them attempt to physically intervene? Moreover, the idea that a body check like that would disarm a would-be attacker (who, you hypothesize, might have a weapon) and/or de-escalate the situation is also laughable. None of that is to say it means Kerr should be punished with a red card--see my posts above to confirm I don't believe that. But we also shouldn't be inventing narratives that do not fit the facts in front of us. She took a blindside run at a jackass who undoubtedly deserved it. No dispute there. But if you can watch that clip and believe with no doubt that her actions were about protecting herself and others, I just don't know how to have a reasonable discussion about referee options because we are not operating from the same basic set of facts. 3) Most importantly, this "the Laws don't apply" is both wrong and dangerous. And nonsensical. Of course they apply. They are the governing regulations of the event/competition. In your posts, explaining why the Laws don't apply, you even cite the Laws. If they don't apply, why do that? The point isn't at the Laws don't apply. It's figuring out how they apply, identifying nuances, and determining wiggle room. All while keeping the Spirit of the Laws in mind. Angelo Bratsis would famously say you need to know the Laws inside-out, word-for-word, so that you could know exactly how they bend (he conveyed this visually in clinics). When I read a silly assertion like "the Laws don't apply," and the chastising of people who feel they do, I don't even know how to react. It's absurd. My decision to not give a card in this situation is reached by applying the Laws. So would a decision to give a red card in a slightly different scenario.
To be fair, the resolution on the video isn't great so I could be making assumptions or seeing things. But it is true that he's standing still, showing absolutely no urgency to the situation. So, at minimum, in his official duties he was at least viewing it as less of a serious problem than others might (or maybe he should have?). But I'll choose to believe I'm seeing a smirk, too.
Where do you get this crap? Those individuals aren't there illegally. They have every legal right to be there. They are part of the event. The fact that they might be violating a law of the game is irrelevant. Nearly every state has laws against leaving the stands and entering the players' area. Nearly every state has a castle doctrine that allows you to use force against those who illegally enter your workplace. You're simply guessing. My point is this applies to every match. If a pitch invasion occurs, players need to be able to protect themselves. Players nor officials need not determine whether someone is drunk, seeking attention, or an actual threat. That's not anyone on the pitches job. Where in the laws to they say they cover criminal activity and self defense? If the man had a knife and swinging it at Kerr and she took him down, do you really maintain she could be red carded? Should all of those 12 year olds have been cautioned?
I can only laugh. This whole passage is mind-blowing to me. We are supposed to fly past the Laws of the Game, because @Sport Billy deems them irrelevant, and use "illegal" only in the sense of state government jurisdictions. While we're talking about a game in England. Right. Oh and you're talking about a "workplace" where 99% of the situations in our sport where this would apply would not constitute a workplace. If someone other than a player or referee enters the field, they have done so illegallly per the LOTG. No, a substitute does not have "every legal right to be there." In fact, he has no rights barring a correct use of the substitution procedure. If you want to tell me that your expert reading of the laws of the state of Nebraska say otherwise, I can only defer to you. But I would be quite surprised if things like castle doctrine applied to a fan rushing the field (who, has purchased a ticket and has every legal right to be in the stadium) but not, say, a technical staff member (who has every legal right to be in the technical area) doing the exact same thing. That would be quite a detailed state law that was constructed there. Whatever. Fine. Everything should apply in a blanket fashion with no nuance. The world would be a better place and things would be much simpler. Great. Where do they not? Where is the "except if a player determines that her opponent or another individual has engaged in crime" exception? That's a really interesting question given I've said multiple times I think she shouldn't be red carded even though this is just probably a drunk with a cellphone. But sure, yes. If he had a knife then I think it's a red card. I shouldn't have taken the bait. You are seemingly incapable of nuance. If you somehow take away that a bunch of 12 year olds should be cautioned for running to cover for weather after I specifically talked about understanding the laws so that you can bend the laws... I don't know, man. It's like you're reading what you want to read and dying on a hill that you don't even need to be on. We agree that in this situation Kerr shouldn't be red carded (despite your efforts to assert that I said she should). My only goal here was to drive home the point that the Laws always apply--mostly because you write with such assuredness that they don't while that "Moderator" tag is under your name in the Referee forum. I've made my points I'll leave it there.
I am purely looking at this from a refereeing perspective. Of course, without my referee hat on I'm glad the guy got what he richly deserved. There just has to be a measure of common sense used here. We talk about interpreting the Laws all of the time on here, "the rule book bends", "Law 18", etc. Yes, we don't want players near the stands to reach across and hit people. Yes, we don't want players jumping into the stands. Yes, we don't want a player coming from behind to sucker-punch an unsuspecting fan. Maybe the USB caution is the common sense approach, but to me it still disproportionately punishes the player.
Looking back at my own comments about on that thread 10 years ago. Smh! How embarrassing. I don't know how I feel about this. Let's all agree, the yellow card is absolutely absurd. Ridiculous decision and logic. I know it's a tough sell and the referee would make her (I'm assuming it was a female official) life way more difficult than it is and it would probably garner headlines around the world, but I think the brave and correct call is a red card. She lined him up. I would have no problem with nothing if she did right at the beginning or middle of his walk through the pitch. On the other hand, we have to think how this would play in the public's eyes. Right now it's a funny clip or meme. Let's think this through. Imagine a female player getting a red card for hitting a drunk male pitch invader. Can you imagine the headlines about "women inequality, etc." "would a male player get a red card?" Even though we have seen examples of male players getting red cards for situations like this. Now can you imagine if the referee was male and gave a red card to a female player for decking a male pitch invader?
Again, it feels weird for me to be on the same block as Billy, and I've rephrased this about a dozen times as a result, but I'd parse those who the LOTG apply to and those the LOTG do not apply to. The referee has dominion over the players and those who are legally around the field. If a substitute, or member of the coaching staff, or member of the training staff enters the field illegally, we have tools to deal with that in the LOTG (cards, and their resulting suspensions). If a fan enters the field illegally, we have no recourse other than to waive our arms and yell for help. Extending the analogy, if a person covered by the LOTG yells from the bench that I should go f--- myself, I can card that person. If a fan yells from the stands that I should go f--- myself, I either have to live with it, or stop the game and find someone to remove that fan. I can't walk up and red card him (again, always him) and watch him hang his head in shame as he gathers his belongings and heads to the parking lot. We all watched the video last week of the California dad who ran on the pitch and flattened an AR. We were all horrified. If someone on the opposing team had tackled him before he got to the ref, are we supposed to red card that player? Also, I'm 6'2" 180 pounds. If an angry parent comes on to the field and hits me, do I red card myself if instead of running away I hit him back?
The red card doesn't have some magic fairy dust on it that transports certain individuals to the locker room. If a dismissed player refuses to leave, your recourse is also "wave your arms and yell for help." But not really. You have all the powers in Law 5 as recourse. And your inherent authority. In a professional setting, you also will have met with security and have a level of oversight there. It's not as frantic or chaotic as your sentence above implies. Also, the league suspends players, Just like leagues, acting through clubs, ban fans. And those bans are often at least partially based off a referee report. So that is not a good example to make your point. Anyway, there are extraordinary circumstances where a referee's authority is tested. The outline for how to act and the recourses are still outlined in the LOTG and rules of competition. Pretending otherwise feels intellectually lazy. That doesn't mean the final answer will always be an LOTG remedy; if a murder is committed on field, the referee isn't making the arrest and leading the prosecution. But the initial on-field response from a referee is based on the LOTG.
Yeah, I don't get having people not legally allowed past the stands in the same cohort with people legally allowed on the field. An assistant coach is on the field, if not between the lines, legally. If he enters the pitch without permission, that is a Laws violation that the Referee should respond with the appropriate response. The "fan" here is not on the field legally. Extending the Laws to him seems absurd; the response to him should be legal not soccer related. If Kerr assaults him, that is a legal problem. If a red card for Kerr is the correct call, and I'm not saying it isn't, that should be revised by IFAB. It would be ridiculous for 5 minutes into the World Cup final for a pitch invader to run towards Messi, get tripped by DeMaria, and have DeMaria given a red card and Argentina play the rest of the final, watched by billions of people, with 10 men. To even put a referee in that spot is ridiculous.
Not a great video, but this is defending yourself and players on the pitch. No card was issued for the takedown during this 'friendly' 2 months ago. That's much different than what Kerr did.
This has all become a mountain out of a molehill. She probably thought to herself "I'll show this guy what soccer is about" She didn't come at him with fists, or cleats, or swinging like a crazy person. It was a good old fashioned hip check shoulder charge. (OK...a heavy one) If this guy had a ball at his feet it would be a foul, probably not yellow. He fell over because he wasn't expecting it. There is a reason this has become a meme. Because in the end...it was funny. At so many levels.
I disagree with this point. He does not appoach her, but rather Kerr continued walking the same way as the perp, then moved into his path (not the other way around), then ran into him with a shoulder to his chest to knock him down. She had other options available; e.g. Walk the opposite direction , Now the perp was still a potential danger, but less of one if she had walked away from him rather than crossing his path. And yes, security had a major fail here as well. By the LOTG, this certainly could be a RC for VC (to a spectator), but a yellow for USB could be justified as well.
I won't presume to speak for the forum, but, for me, of course I felt satisfaction at what Kerr did. It's entertaining. I'll do you one better: . I found that entertaining too. My personal take (divorcing myself from applying the laws of the game) is that any pitch/field invader legally "assumes the risk" of a beatdown. But we can't divorce ourselves from the laws of the game. As referees we need to apply them. I won't beat a dead horse here but this is either a red for VC or it's nothing. I think common sense should prevail here and there should be no misconduct for the reasons many posters have already mentioned.
I think the real problem is there, had the fan attacked Kerr, and Kerr punched him in self-defense I think she still gets sent off for violent conduct. There is nothing in the LOTG about self-defense. Although obviously the red card would be surely appealed and rescinded. I think this is a loophole in the Laws.
Turns out I hadn't posted in the prior thread, but I know I've been involved with this conversation before. As no a ref I tend to side with the idea that once a fan crosses the line (literally, the lines on the field) thy are now in an unauthorized area with unknown intent and its appropriate for players to take action to protect themselves without having to worry about punishment. Seles and the other examples are good ones when the players don't know what this pitch invader intends, and the reductio ad absurdum example of being sent off in the 10th minute of the WC final for protecting yourself is still a good example. That's not something a player should be worried about. (That goes both ways as well, once a player crosses the line and goes into the stands the fans have similar rights) In this case however, Kerr went looking for the confrontation. The fan was clearly walking away and was not approaching her or anyone else at that point. There's no self-defense justification at the moment Kerr decides to take action. So while a red card feels harsh it is justified under the LotG in my opinion. The fact that she only got a yellow is probably a bit lucky, and yet probably the "most correct" result when looking at the big picture, though it sounds like it doesn't fit under the LotG.
Thanks for the videos posted with no context. Here are two articles about entertainers being sued for doing that https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nm...awsuit-with-female-fan-he-punched-2321889?amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/profoo...fl-game-hires-lawyer-says-he-was-injured/amp/