Dutch league refs making serious work of the don't hassle each other/the ref policy. An Excelsior players was given a yellow card for a foul, which he didnot appreciate and made this very vocal to the ref. This resulted in a second yellow, so off he was. Because he applauded the ref, while leaving the pitch, the ref board should give him an extra match ban for obviously not taking lessons from his cards. Others were given yellow cards for reacting to each others. Keep it up for a couple of matches and coaches, if players themselves are too stupid to get it, will instruct their players to keep it cool.
https://www.mundodeportivo.com/futb...-atractiva-arbitros-espanoles-matan-liga.html Apparently in some interview Lewandoski for Barcelona said something along the lines of referees killing the league (as this headline says), but basically said the La Liga refs let defenders get away with a ton of stuff that kills the offensive game. I told you guys we needed a thread just for La Liga. This league is worthy of its own topic from how much crap happens.
It's Week 4 in La Liga. There have been a total of two posts so far relaying information about incidents in La Liga matches. And then less than a handful of posts responding to those. It's Week 4 in the EPL. There have been 385 posts. If there are incidents worth discussing, bring them up here. But it's abundantly clear there is not widespread interest here in La Liga itself or the referees and their performances broadly.
A player in the Georgian Liga took his jersey off before scoring the goal. Could/should the referee have annulled the goal? https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/168c3re/samtredias_footballer_tornike_akhvlediani_took/
Never thought of that before but I guess it would have to be. The situation feels paradoxical, but the yellow card remains for removing the shirt for celebrating a goal even if the goal is disallowed. I’d hate to be that referee but I don’t really see a way around it from a LOTG perspective.
And why should we be looking for a way around it? What a knucklehead thing to do. edit: ok, the above was my gut reaction, fueled by my old school views about some things. On more reflection. Is a celebration caution, including removing the shirt technically USB or delaying the restart? If it’s delaying the restart, it can’t have occurred before the goal. But if it is USB, then it happened while the ball is in play and it should be an IFK. But in the real world, no ref is calling back a goal for that.
So my gut reaction was where you got upon reflection (at least, sort of). I didn't get into the idea that it was DR, but more the literal point (or paradox issue that @StarTime cites) that you can't punish someone for celebrating a goal when no goal has been scored. Or, at least, I don't think you can. So for me, everything here goes to Law 4. It's an issue with the Player's Equipment during dynamic play. And I thought or presumed that an issue with the equipment was, as you state, an IFK. Unlike you, I actually did (or maybe still do) think a referee has to consider calling this--you can't just start stripping components of your equipment gratuitously before scoring into an empty net. My initial take here was that this was a deliberate violation of Law 4, there's no way to apply advantage, and that if Law 4 means anything you have to stop play and issue the IFK. But... The actual text of Law 4 is ambiguous on all this. A jersey is compulsory equipment. And the sanction for violation of Law 4, if there needs to be one, is an IFK. But the actual verbiage is as follows: So... First, play "need not be stopped." Of course, that means play can be stopped. But we have no instructions on when it should be or does "need" to be. It's entirely possible a deliberate removal of the shirt would land us in the "yes, it needs to be stopped" category. But I don't think any of us have ever been told that. And maybe no one's ever bothered to consider that. Second, a player is "instructed by the referee to leave the field of play" before play is stopped (presuming here that the referee has observed it during dynamic play, which is obviously true in this case). But then, if they can somehow fix the equipment before play actually stops naturally, they get to stay. So it's not some hard-fast rule of "get off the field while your equipment is wrong." I think the issue here is that this entire passage envisages a player losing a shinguard or a boot. It's not about a shirt coming completely off and certainly not about a shirt being deliberately taken off. In theory, by my reading of this Law, the eventual goalscorer should have been "instructed to leave" the moment he removed his shirt. But that is physically impossible for the referee to communicate. So play goes on, he scores at the next natural stoppage and then must leave the field to correct his equipment. No IFK. And no caution for a violation of Law 4. But then everything comes full circle and if you DO give the caution for a violation of Law 12, you did it for an act of misconduct that occurred during dynamic play. So at that point, technically there should have been an IFK because advantage could not be applied. That's where I think. you need to eat the "celebration card" because it is part of that paradox and gets you in trouble. There's just a big fusion of Law 4, 5 and 12 here that, I think, can either get you to an answer where it's an IFK and a yellow card or no card at all. But the seemingly common sense or expected decision (goal stands + yellow card) is probably not lawful--I really don't see how it is, honestly.
Here I disagree. The player is celebrating without his shirt on. I think that can easily be fit into the excessive celebrations, especially in light of the specific example of taking off his shirt to celebrate. as far as what I would do on the real world, I think it depends. In a professional game (which I will never do) or in a moment of true excitement, I think I would go with the post goal caution, on the justification I have above. if it is one more goal in a blow out or if I had any sense of taunting an opponent rather than a flood of excitement, I’d go with the USB card and an IFK. Unless a league were to announce it an advance, I’m hard pressed to imagine a professional referee cancelling a goal like that.
But the act of removal occurred during dynamic play and there's no advantage. So how do you justify not stopping play to issue the caution? Unless you're saying that you see the shirt being off during dynamic play as a Law 4 issue, so play need not be stopped. And then the shirt being off once there is a stoppage as a Law 12 issue, so then you punish it. That's an incredibly fine line to walk, if so. Also, if we want to get really textualist here. It's removing the shirt that is cautionable. Not "having no shirt on." So again, the removal occurs dynamic play...
Just to respond to everything in your post, I think this is all correct. Practically, it's probably the route to go (in both circumstances you raise). But imagine something like this in a cup final or extra time of a knockout competition with this being the decisive goal and the defending team knows/understands the ramifications of it happening during dynamic play. I think that might be one of the most unenviable or uncomfortable positions I can think of for a referee relative to an unexpected/novel situation. Even trying to think quickly on my feet here, I can go in either direction for what justice or the spirit of the laws demands.
The simplest approach, perhaps, might be to just dodge the Law 12 “celebration of a goal” “paradox” and simply say that the player has showed a lack of respect for the game.
Yeah, I was thinking that. And I actually think that's what's happened. But then it has to be an IFK and no goal. This really isn't even a letter of the law versus spirit of the law sort of question. Both can be applied different ways here. It's really about figuring out if a team should be punished for an individual's silly actions when the consequences to the team are so severe (and there was no plausible other way they would not score this goal). But when you step back and think about it, that happens with individual defenders all the time and penalties being created out of thin air for bonheaded plays. The more I think about it, the more I get comfortable with no goal here. My hang-ups are that the exact language of Law 4 doesn't demand it and the "lack of respect" clause in Law 12 is subjective, so it is a very high threshold to take away a certain goal.
Decent point. Would a VAR feel comfortable--or even obligated--to say, "an infraction occurred in the APP and it is one which you have sanctioned, I am recommending a review(?)" for no goal? It's kind of farcical. Everyone saw the play. This isn't a situation with a bad angle or a missed incident. And the referee is sanctioning the infraction. It's just a question of whether or not the infraction annuls the goal. This thread shows that is at least somewhat open to interpretation, so I suspect most VARs would know their place, so to speak, and let the referee does what he thinks is best. Or, more likely, the whole crew might discuss the ramifications if there were one or two members who felt strongly the goal should be disallowed. Depending upon the team dynamics, this could go a lot of different ways. But, as always, it is the referee's call.
I'm glad this OFR was rejected in Italy but bewildered under what argument it was sent down in the first place: https://streamable.com/w1qit6 Referee shows immediate and decisive action to sanction SFP. And a VAR undermines him by suggesting this is clearly wrong? Because the ball was played first? I mean this is the problem with the slippery slope of clearly wrong and evolving standards. This seems like a case of a VAR substituting his judgment (and bad judgment at that, I'd argue) rather than making an actual assessment based on the standards he is tasked with using.
Aren't we already at that slippery slope where some leagues (MLS included) are using VAR to get the "preferred" decision right instead of correcting only clear and obvious? We've seen penalties overturned for the most miniscule touch by the defenders. We've gone from the idea of using VAR only to correct decisions where the average fan could look at it and tell you it's wrong to looking to getting it right in a class room setting.
Inventen otra tarjeta, la roja ya quedó chica en el fútbol de Honduras.😳🇭🇳 pic.twitter.com/JoYicFAFi9— Ataque Futbolero (@AtaqueFutbolero) September 18, 2023 Yellow or Red?
BOGO on red card tackles apparently. Only thing the crew can do is document and leave it up to the competition to sort out.
Bingo. Others are just missing the forest for the trees. Unsporting behavior is a catch all. The list is not all inclusive. No need to overthink this. Caution for UB and IFK.
0 cartellini…… pic.twitter.com/ddNUbHzMmZ— Milan Zone (@theMilanZone_) September 27, 2023 Yunus Musah takes a shot to the head.
If anyone can do their game clip magic on the Hummels penalty in the Hoffenheim-Dortmund game around 23', it might be a really interesting case study. Based on what I saw on the ESPN+ broadcast, it looked like Hummels commits a foul just outside of the penalty area. Then he makes additional contact inside of the area. On-field call was penalty, and there was no overturn after a pretty lengthy VAR check for what seemed like an objective (inside/outside of the penalty area) decision. I'm interested in seeing the play again and if this is an example of the "punish the more serious offense" situation. EDIT - rewound and looked at it closer to the TV. It was pretty clear to me that the first contact with the foot was outside and the second contact on the other foot was inside the area.