Two episodes. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H__RflIMoW8"]YouTube - Dnipro - Dynamo[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCs0Nb1DX4g"]YouTube - Dnipro - Dynamo[/ame] I would like to get general opinion on what punishment both infractions merited. Please disregard the punishment that referee did hand out. Don't let it influence your opinion.
I AM a referee The first is clearly serious foul play. Correct decision, but I would prefer to see the referee show that card a lot faster for match control purposes. This incident needs no evaluation of prior incidents, etc., because it is, to use the USSF terminology, "100% misconduct". This challenge is insane, both legs above the ball, one of them straight legged, high speed, etc. He has clearly put his opponent at serious risk of injury. The camera's angle of view is excellent, the referee's angle of view, though different, is also good enough to properly judge the nature of this challenge. The second, presumably in the same game at 54', is harder to analyze. The angle of the camera is not helpful, and because it appears to not include excessive force, the caution may well be correct. The defender appears to attempt to stab at the ball with his left foot, misses, and clatters his opponent in the back of the legs with his right. The referee is very well positioned to judge the nature of this challenge. At some levels, this might be SFP. At the professional level, I think a caution is correct, but I'd rather have the referee's angle of view.
First one I agree with the red card for #24 Blue. Tackle was launched from a distance with both feet way off the ground flying in there with no control and excessive force. Only mystery is why it took the referee so long to show the red card or at least get it out. Second one I agree with the yellow card for #17 White. Tackle has control from a short distance away with feet on the ground (until he brings up his right foot to trip the opponent). Looks like a "message" tackle. Agree with both decisions.
Without question, the first foul is a send-off for SFP. The second foul is not nearly as serious as the first. The first tackle was by an unguided missle and made contact high on the lower leg, near the knee. It was over the ball. The second tackle was not over the ball; it was close to the ground. It looks like he got the ball but his follow-through took him through the player. I would call that a reckless tackle.
I also agreed with both decisions. Thanks for playing! The match in question was Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk (blue team) - Dynamo Kyiv (white team) in Ukrainian Premier League last Saturday. Final score 0:2. Player #24 in blue - former Ukrainian U-19 player Pashaev (RB). Player #17 in white - Ukrainian International Mykhalyk (CB/DMid) The person hurt during the first infraction is Serbian International Milos Ninkovic (white #36)
The first one (21') simply has too many SIAPOA elements to ignore. Send-off. The second one (55') I think in-and-of-itself is 'orange'. The challenge itself is probably merely reckless. It just didn't get my hearbeat up like the first one did. But. . .when I consider the big picture of the match I may well send off White #17. Consider. . .blue player is sent off at 21' for a very ugly challenge. I hardly think it a stretch that White #17 could be retaliating and attempting to send a message with this challenge. It simply would depend on what happened in the intervening 34+ minutes of play. In any case, on this second challenge I think the CR did himself a disservice by going to the yellow card immediately. Had he simply waited a couple of seconds, it may or may not have changed the color of the card but it would have given him a bit more time to process the big picture. -- CSR
Well put. In this instance, this goes along with the urban legends of the refs who throw their yellow card at the benches to let them know that more misconduct will be red. Taken in a vacuum, I think its Red/Yellow but given the retaliatory nature of the 2nd challenge, I would say that 10v10 might help to settle the game.
The referee is wearing a fifa badge. Does anyone know who he is? Second call is not argued as extensively as first call. As Elizondo said, he needs to get the red out immediately on the first one, just as fast as he got the yellow out on the 2nd.
http://www.worldfootball.net/spielbericht/visha-liga-2009-2010-dnipro-dnipropetrovsk-dinamo-kiev/ Referee: Vitaly Godulyan He did 3 WC qualifiers in the '06 cycle and a few early round UEFA Cup games until 07/08. Since then not a whole lot of international duty.
Red. Yellow/orange. At younger levels, it's also a yellow for the player who comes in and pushes the opponent after the SFP. Not at professional though.
Players--current or former--who are serious and keep up with changes to the laws and interpretations--make the best referees. Players who rely mostly on their playing experience to referree start out bad and get worse as the laws and interpretations pass them by. They are among the worst refs I have ever worked with.
Current/former players can also let their playing style inform their refereeing, for the worse. Stereotypically, the defender who won't call a foul until there's blood, or the striker who blows the whistle every time a player gets breathed on too hard.
Some of the best refs I know are ex players. If you can take your playing experience in reading the game and flow, you can be very effective as a ref. Flip side, I know some refs who were never players and they don't make good refs, in general. Lack of understanding of the game and how players react to various things gets in the way of good foul recognition. There are endless examples for and against both sides, but being a good ref takes understanding the game, ability to understand players and how they react to various challenges and how to read players and figure out tactics.