David Beckham: Evian vs. PSG [R]

Call me stupid, but I'm not really seeing a red there. Yes its cleats, but it honestly doesn't look like much. Maybe the replay just doesn't make it look as vicious as it was.

 

I would venture to say his intent was very obvious on that.

 

Really? I thought it looked like he was trying to do what he did: get between the ball and the opponent and shove the opponent out of the way. Just because there is a lunge doesn't mean the lunge was at the opponent. Whether it was excessively dangerous to warrant a red? I dunno, I'll defer to the ref on the field who is far more experienced than I ever will be. But I think inferring an intent to maim is seeing something that isn't there.

 

Attempting to commit serious foul play( lunge/stamp combo) is the same as committing serious foul play, right? So why do we have to wait for a snapped leg before giving a red? Fortunately Beckham never connected on the foul. This foul was blatantly horrendous.

 

He could have easily stuck his foot/leg into the same spot without raising it up and stomping down.

 

I think we need a much better clip. From the clip I just don't see enough. Looks like the cleat grazes the leg (obviously, it did more than that but we need to see that), which in a professional game I don't think is enough to go red.

 

Yooou really don't like this guy do you?

Honestly, I think we can't tell much from these replays. But honestly, to me it looks like he could be trying to extend his body as much as possible to get his hip out between the opponent and the ball. Maybe with a better angle I would definitively say red, but either way, this wouldn't be anything especially horrendous...

 

Agreed. That was a horrible challenge. If Beckham makes contact, he breaks the fib and tib. 100 percent deserved send off and a clear example that an attempt to break an opponents leg can result in a send off.

 

Intent or not if that evian player doesn't jump out his leg is likely broken. Good send off to me.

 

I shudder at the thought that some of you are highly qualified referees. I don't really don't get how this requires much dissection if this isn't a red card offense. This is a textbook case that they use for Grade 8 certification videos in which they describe an act of serious foul play despite lack of actual contact. This is also what came to my mind:

 

Boys and girls, on these type of situations, watch the head and the eyes. Although one can't tell 100% from the video, it sure looks like Becks sees pinkie coming in for the challenge and lunges out, cleats exposed, to gain possession through intimidation (exposed cleats). Potentially causing significant damage if he makes contact. Clear SFP in my book. Time to hit the showers.

 

Totally agree.

I think this sort of move is common: trying to carve out space and insinuate yourself between your opponent and the ball, often done with a vigorous stamp of the foot and a turn to make your back to the opponent. For me, it's often hard to make a judgment of SFP when little or no contact is made.

In this case, however, beckham hitches his leg up and then thrusts it down diagonally- there is no rationale to challenge this way except to intimidate or potentially harm. It is not faster- just a message that you get out of my way or something bad will happen to you.

 

Red, red, red. . Geez, he stomp/chopped right at the guy's legs. I'll send you off in a heartbeat for that. Come to think of it, I've never even SEEN the most pissed off teenage boy try something like that.

 

I can't honestly believe people would not think this was a red card. To all the naysayers consider this, the clip you are viewing is slowed down significantly, if you see it in real time, just like the referee saw it, definite red card. It looked 10x worse in real time, no doubt about the card. I agree with my colleague from Philly I shudder at the thought that anyone who sees this as no red might be a high level referee.

 

@ Redstar - You say this has to be violent conduct, then call it one of the worst "on the ball" tackles you've ever seen. That's a pretty obvious contradiction, no? Beckham is clearly challenging for the ball here. SFP yes, but VC - absolutely not.

Also, the whole horror lunge/tackle/assault is a bit rich. I know SFP doesn't require contact, but assault sure does. It's a red card, no doubt. And it's interesting to talk about here, because it's one that many non-referees would not even call a foul (see Beckham's reaction). But let's not go crazy. There was no horror here.

 

You are correct.

Wave a weapon at someone during a traffic dispute? Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Battery involves contact (although there is such a thing as unsuccessful battery, long story).

Back to the soccer world, we've discussed the merit of "upgrading" SFP to VC depending on the severity. I seem to recall there support for that in the case of a very un-soccerlike play that nevertheless involves the ball. However, I've always been a fan of writing up a tackle like this as SFP but going out of my way to ensure the reader knows its more than just the "normal" SFP. I think some upgrade to VC because their understand the league they work for blindly punishes based on which check box is marked, not dynamically looking at the situation.

 

Video no longer works. Anyone else have a new link or a better angle? Would really like to see a live speed shot if this.