I thought I also saw a scissor with the straight leg coming into contact as the trail leg also collected. I could be wrong about that. I still think it's a send-off. The key factor for me still remains the weight of the Swiss player coming behind his trail leg and connecting with the Spain player's plant leg.
What a rough way for the Swiss to go home . . . hang in for 50 minutes down a player and then miss 3 out of 4. Yikes.
That was some of the worst set of penalty kicks I've seen in a loooong time. When Yann Sommer dies, his teammates should carry his coffin so they can let him down one last time.
This seems strange to me. If a player comes in with two feet, studs exposed in a slide with enoughforce to end well past the opponent's leg, that seems enough force to *risk* serious injury to be enough force. Having gotten lucky in missing full contact with the ankle by a couple of inches doesn't speak to the amount of force used, only to whether it happened to miss. That is, I would think what matters to constitute "endangering" would be whether the studs being up and force of the slide would be likely to cause injury if there were solid contact. In my (limited) understanding, what matters is the force used that endangers an opponent, not whether than endangerment actually results in serious injury. Is the law is applied with a "no harm no foul" manner where if you happen to miss by a little, that's enough to avoid SFP, so that serious injury is a requisite for SFP? (I do not pretend to know current interpretations)
I may get crucified for saying this, but I think a huge part of the problem is that many people (including match commentators, former refs, and former players) are unclear about what the current law/standard is. That's why you get so many fans & commentators babbling nonsensically about refereeing decisions. I don't know whose job/responsibility it is, but somebody needs to do a better job communicating/educating match & studio commentators about the current LOTG.
I don't think we're quite there. But it's probably closer to that than it should be at the highest levels. In theory we should always be punishing the nature of the challenge. In reality, the result matters to some extent at these levels. But none of this is black and white. You could have a horrendous, career-threatening challenge that mostly misses but still gets a red. Likewise you could have a serious injury resulting from something closer to a freak accident, which should be looked upon more favorably if the nature of the challenge itself isn't what actually caused the danger. And it's all a sliding scale in between.
The fact that everyone knows almost literally will follow this intro and therefore won't read it is what will prevent you from getting crucified. Who do you think your audience is here?
Thanks for that. I had forgotten that is a new element and that prong of the analysis has loomed large in my (perhaps mistaken) thinking
I mean, I know he's a broken record but I think there's a kernel of truth to his dead horse. @MassachusettsRef feel free to delete this if you think this isn't the place but I do think the varied reactions to both this card and particularly the card on Sweden is indicative that even those who are expected to know the rules to help the fans (commentators and the like) don't. But I don't know that there's anything more refs or the IFAB (or the rules part of FIFA) can do. The issue has to be solved by groups that aren't part of the referee community at this point.
Whomever happens to be reading and like me is frustrated by the fact that nobody other than referees seem to have a clear idea what the rules actually are and how they are supposed to me implemented, including the "experts" commentating on the games on TV. When the expert former referee (Clattenberg) contradicts the decision of the on-field ref (which he pretty much did in this case), you do have some sort of problem that needs solving... Because eventually the decisions made by referees start to lose legitimacy with players/coaches/fans if nobody understands how/why they are being made... For example, how many people have you heard say...."oh, he got the ball first, so it's not a foul.....", despite the fact that whether or not the player got the ball is irrelevant as far as SFP is concerned. Misinformation about the LOTG is not a good thing....
Certainly one of the adjectives describing Clattenberg is true, I am not so sure about the second. Most of us who are not referees but have watched a lot of soccer over the years are pretty adept on figuring out what is and is not a RC. Clattenberg is paid to be a pundit on television and that may or may not have anything to do with his former status as a referee (I'll leave the 'expert' for others to debate). I missed the second half of the match but did see the clip on the RC which looked legitimate to me. But say Oliver only come up with a YC and VAR intervenes and suggests he take another look. I've seen this happen three times this past year in the Dutch league and two of those involved Kuipers and Makkelie who are both 'expert' referees. Each of them changed the initial YC to Red. Would there be outrage had this scenario come up with Oliver?
This probably describes how I saw it when I watched it for the first time. The live wide view angle was like holy crap that's a red card. And then upon looking at a couple of replays it became more arguable and probably think it falls on the yellowish side of the cutoff considering the temp of the match
Two footed plus any hint of rotation is scissors in my opinion and that is exactly what happened here.
This is much more obviously a red card to me than the Danielson red card in Sweden/Ukraine. I realize most people here think I'm a durned fool (and I made clear in the Sweden/Ukraine thread that I am not a referee), but I'll just offer myself up as a stalking horse for a typical ignorant fan, a data point in seeing the divide between the perceptions of professional referees and typical fans, but at least a fan who does care about the safety of players and has come here in the past to try to soak in the collective wisdom known as BigSoccer. If I was at a sports bar watching this, I would be telling people why this is a red card based on what I've taken from the Big Soccer School of Interpretation. I would've thought this a good "textbook" example of a red card even though the defender "got the ball". But apparently I'm not such a good student ADD: regarding the "scissors" issue, my understanding of scissors was catching the opponent's legs between your own, like a vise, giving the opponent's leg nowhere to go to relieve the force against it, either the sliding force of your tackle, or the opponent's own body falling over. Why would a scissoring motion in itself matter? If a defender simply came up and used a scissor motion on an opponent for a second, he's not going to break his opponent's leg.
I think this is part of things. The referee on the field has a perspective of players and teams in the game and is managing them. That perspective is based on a knowledge of them - let’s face it, they review film and get to know what to expect of players and teams once they get the assignment - and how the game is progressing. They study tactics. The perspective informs the decisions made on the field. They know what the teams are trying to do. They see players getting frustrated. They know what is frustrating them. They are doing what they can about it in terms of the laws (fouls/misconduct vs players being outplayed). The referee also makes a judgement of where they need to be to get the best view of a play. They anticipate play. They work on positioning. Often they have a great angle to view a challenge… one that no one else will ever have. (I remember the MLS all star game that Grajeda wore a go pro camera a few years back). The fans and players don’t have they same view of what’s going on on the field. Players express their frustration. The referee knows all of this. The referee knows both side of this. I see things happen on the field. I see the views from various cameras. Most of the time I understand the sanction… foul, YC, RC. I may not have dealt with it the same way, but I understand why the referee dealt with it the way he did. The foul today, when I saw it, I though YC. The RC surprised me, but I understand why it was shown. I saw a scissor because the fouled player’s leg was between the fouling player’s legs at pace. That may not meet the definition above, but whatever. Anyhow, in the opinion of the referee, it was a red card. That may not have been what I would have done, but I understand it, and am fine with it being the outcome. I am not sure that explanation will satisfy casual fans, but, whatever.
You say this is the more obvious red card offense compared to the Danielson one?? As others have stated when video clips are shown in clinics to teach referees about Serious Foul Play, the Danielson clip will be first. It’s the easy one. He launched himself and straight legged impaled another player. Intent isn’t important. That’s the one we want referees to 100% agree on being SFP. This one is clip 4 out of 5. It’s not clear or obvious and has lots of ambiguity. In a classroom I suspect 1/3 would raise their hand for a yellow, 1/3 would raise their have for SFP and the rest would be on the fence. From a teaching standpoint I want it to generate discussion on the fine points of SFP. And I don’t think there is a right answer either way. My initial thought was “that’s a harsh red” in the professional game but I know what he saw and I understand why he made his choice. In reflection I like it more than I thought initially.
I love the red vs. yellow discussion here. For me, as a fan who thinks refs in general should be less reluctant to show red, it was 50-50. 10% worse, red, 10% less severe yellow, this play, thank God I didn't have to make the call. It's interesting that the consensus here is a bit toward red, since my own opinion is usually mildly but noticeably more harsh than the consensus here. I'm not making a conclusion, just think it's interesting.
This is all great except for one thing. The first “obvious red” clip will now be the Jesus face kick in the Brazil match last night. The Danielson play is clip 2. But in all seriousness, what you wrote is spot on and what people need to understand about refereeing in all sports.
<goes to youtube> Good God almighty! In my mind, I'm channeling the Hindenburg disaster announcer. Oh, the humanity! (Not too soon, right?)
I wrote that before seeing the Gabby Jesus Kung Fu kick. Holy hell. That may be the most red card of all red cards!
Funnily enough Fred did give a halfhearted effort to argue but was steered away by an opposing player.