GWT: English Premier League Round 4

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
This was worse in terms of recklessness, the only difference is Mawson didn't get injured.

My point here is that there is no consistency from the refs in evaluating these situations.

You would think they learned after Nigel de Jong.

More red than Mane. Definitely.
 

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
Funny Renato Sanches is still considered the steal of the window by many "experts".
 

jacobhockey13

used to watch hockey, then joined HF Boards
Apr 17, 2014
3,108
98
on the bench
Will take those 3 road points for the first time in 22 months or so (PL).

Amen. Merino is wonderful and I honestly back him to show himself as our best player. Manquillo's an awful defender and I can't wait until we get Yedlin back (but in fairness Manquillo did nicely going forward). Hayden didn't play great but has shown he can be better. Gámez also filled in admirably (even though he doesn't have the pace, his defensive technical ability is quite good). I'm really happy with today's performance. Still too early to tell for Joselu.
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,021
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
This was worse in terms of recklessness, the only difference is Mawson didn't get injured.

My point here is that there is no consistency from the refs in evaluating these situations.

Breaking news: Man finds out that football referees use personal judgment/vision on whether a foul is worthy of a yellow or red. Can't accept it, goes online to complain.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,496
10,479
Breaking news: Man finds out that football referees use personal judgment/vision on whether a foul is worthy of a yellow or red. Can't accept it, goes online to complain.

I certainly accept it lol. I'm not complaining, I'm trying to be objective. This is the biggest story that will come out of the PL this weekend and this is absolutely a relevant comparison. Nice try though.
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,021
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
I certainly accept it lol. I'm not complaining, I'm trying to be objective. This is the biggest story that will come out of the PL this weekend and this is absolutely a relevant comparison. Nice try though.

You're failing miserably at it. Either you're a bigger homer than other Liverpool fans on this board or you don't know what "dangerous play" in the rule book refers to.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,496
10,479
You're failing miserably at it. Either you're a bigger homer than other Liverpool fans on thsi board or you don't know what "dangerous play" in the rule book refers to.

My question was if people thought the Ritchie foul should have been a red, by comparison to the Mane red. I think either both were yellow or both were red. But there is no universal ruling on it hence the difference in opinions on said incidents.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
Both were red, but one hit the target and the other didn't. The ref probably didn't want to give a red without contact.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
This was worse in terms of recklessness, the only difference is Mawson didn't get injured.

My question was if people thought the Ritchie foul should have been a red, by comparison to the Mane red. I think either both were yellow or both were red.

As pointed out in post #116, "reckless" means yellow card, not red. "Use of excessive force" is what you get sent off for. The Ritchie foul was reckless. The Mané foul was reckless and then some (Mané's foot against Ederson's head = excessive force, as is evident by Ederson's injury).

z6vJF9v.jpg

Talk about refereeing fundamentals. According to FIFA:
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players.

This obviously doesn't apply to Mané vs Ederson. That's a red card for Mark Clattenburg.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,305
45,253
Ritchie foul getting a yellow is probably the right call. If he had planted the cleats into his chest or something, I'd expect a red.
 

Savant

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2013
36,496
10,479
Ritchie foul getting a yellow is probably the right call. If he had planted the cleats into his chest or something, I'd expect a red.

But it's reckless dangerous play and according to the rules cited above physical contact is not required.

Who knows. As I said I think both were yellow or both were red it's a manner of interpretation. That's soccer. Looking forward to Wednesday.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
But it's reckless dangerous play and according to the rules cited above physical contact is not required.

You're mixing up different offences here.

Dangerous play: no physical contact. Indirect free-kick, possibly a yellow card (provided there is an obvious risk of injury).

If there is physical contact, the action turns from "dangerous play" into an offence that leads to a direct free-kick (resp. a penalty kick if it happens in the box). Then it's up to the referee to classify the foul as either careless (no further discipline beyond the free-kick) or reckless (yellow card for "complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent") or as an example of use of excessive force (red card for "far exceeding the necessary use of force" and putting the opponent in danger of getting injured).
 

mmk786

Registered User
Mar 3, 2004
1,473
51
I blame commentators for all the confusion regarding so many of these decisions. It's obvious most of them have little idea what the rules state even though most of them are former players/coaches.

Saying things like: His eyes were on the ball the entire time, He got the ball first etc etc; make no sense at all. Nowhere in the law does it say if you get the ball first then you can take the opponent out afterwards but the amount of time you hear it makes casual listeners believe it.

I think the FA should come up with some program that teaches commentators the basic laws of the game before they can sit on air and start pontificating.
 

njdevsfn95

Help JJJ, Sprite.
Jul 30, 2006
31,348
55
Cmon, everyone, don't forget the kick to the head of Mbemba during the Huddersfield v Newcastle match.

It wasn't given a red.

So now good luck with your conversation.
 

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
You're mixing up different offences here.

Dangerous play: no physical contact. Indirect free-kick, possibly a yellow card (provided there is an obvious risk of injury).

If there is physical contact, the action turns from "dangerous play" into an offence that leads to a direct free-kick (resp. a penalty kick if it happens in the box). Then it's up to the referee to classify the foul as either careless (no further discipline beyond the free-kick) or reckless (yellow card for "complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent") or as an example of use of excessive force (red card for "far exceeding the necessary use of force" and putting the opponent in danger of getting injured).

I believe Savant is correct.

I remember having discussed this before. I don't think the rules themselves are very well written on this point, but FIFA has made a PPT with some further explanations/clarifications (which aren't really perfectly well written either).

"Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

I'm no physicist, but one might argue that without contact there is no "force" and with no force there can't be any danger. That is not my interpretation. It doesn't matter if you are successful hurting the opponent as long as you are "in danger of". All of the situations we are now discussing a player is putting another player in danger of injury (knowing basically any action on a football pitch can lead to injury).

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf
 

maclean

Registered User
Jan 4, 2014
8,380
2,546
Liverpool probably had more chances and looked slightly better before going down to 10.

Wouldn't have really said so. Surprised no one's mentioned Alexander-Arnold. Kid looked absolutely lost out there.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
I blame commentators for all the confusion regarding so many of these decisions. It's obvious most of them have little idea what the rules state even though most of them are former players/coaches.

This is very true. It often seems that even top coaches and experienced players only have a superficial grasp of the rules.

I believe Savant is correct. (...) "Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

I'm no physicist, but one might argue that without contact there is no "force" and with no force there can't be any danger. That is not my interpretation. It doesn't matter if you are successful hurting the opponent as long as you are "in danger of". All of the situations we are now discussing a player is putting another player in danger of injury (knowing basically any action on a football pitch can lead to injury).

The definition of "using excessive force" is from the Official Interpretation of Law 12 of the Game. Therefore it is a definition that does not stand on its own. Its relevance is restricted to the application of Law 12. Since Law 12 does not talk about every action on a football pitch but only about specific actions, the definition is not suggesting any actions that can lead to injury equal "using excessive force". Instead, Law 12 specifically points out which actions are relevant:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
  • kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
  • trips or attempts to trip an opponent
  • jumps at an opponent
  • charges an opponent
  • strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
  • pushes an opponent
  • tackles an opponen

Only these offences can be classified as "careless", "reckless" or "excessive" for refereeing purposes. All of them require either contact (kicks/trips/jumps at/charges/strikes/pushes/tackles an opponent) or apparent intent to make contact (attempts to ...). The careless vs reckless vs excessive ("in danger of injuring the opponent") distinction does not apply elsewhere:

An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player:
  • plays in a dangerous manner
  • impedes the progress of an opponent
  • prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
  • commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

No mention of careless/reckless/excessive here. Therefore, the Official Interpretion explaining these terms does not apply. What applies instead is the Official Interpretation of "Playing in a dangerous manner":

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury. (...) Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. (...) If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a "normal" challenge, the referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player.

An overview:

1) No contact (dangerous play)
1.1) No "obvious risk of injury" → indirect free-kick
1.1) "Obvious risk of injury" → indirect free-kick and yellow card

2) Contact
2.1) Careless ("lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge, acting without precaution") → direct free-kick
2.2) Reckless ("complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, the opponent") → direct free-kick and yellow card
2.3) Excessive ("far exceeding the necessary use of force, in danger of injuring the opponent") → direct free-kick and red card
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,021
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
But it's reckless dangerous play and according to the rules cited above physical contact is not required.

Who knows. As I said I think both were yellow or both were red it's a manner of interpretation. That's soccer. Looking forward to Wednesday.

It's reckless play if there's no contact or minor. It's "serious foul play" if it results in major contact and injury.
 

East Coast Bias

Registered User
Feb 28, 2014
8,362
6,422
NYC
I can't believe we're still talking about this.

You can spin interpretation till you're blue in the face, but what mane did was insanely dangerous. He knew the keeper was close, the high leg is to protect himself. It fully deserved the red.
 

Havre

Registered User
Jul 24, 2011
8,459
1,733
I guess it comes down to how you interpret what "an attempt to kick" means. Personally I believe they all fall under that one.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->