Question Number: 34551

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/6/2022

RE: Adult

JOHN of KAKOPETRIA, 2800 CYPRUS asks...

Hi,

I would like to have a look at this video. The team with the yellow kits conceded 4 red cards.

The first one was a direct red card and the other three were from a second yellow

What is your opinion about ref's decisions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2exVWwIj6U

The first one was on 4th minute the second on 35th the third on 67th and the fourth on 72nd

Thank you,
John

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi John
Thanks for the question.

The four red card were entirely correct and I would have no problem with any of the decisions. The only issue I have is that the first red card should have been called in real time. When I first looked at I asked myself why this was only a yellow card caution. It took VAR to correct this and without VAR it would have been an error not to have dismissed the player for serious foul play. It was a classic red card challenge with the player lunging with a high boot and making contact high on the opponents leg. Looking at it again I think that a Blue player may have got in the way of the view of the referee or at least it looked like that possibility.

On the second red card Yellow #99 was already on a caution so the player should not have been making rash challenges. The player is no where near the ball and he makes contact with the opponent bringing him to ground. Had Blue been able to continue there was a promising attack on the right side of the field. A caution was justified here for stopping a promising attack.

On the third one it is a rash challenge by Yellow #3. The caution could have been for either a reckless challenge or for stopping a promising attack. Had Blue got past the challenge it would have been four attackers v three defenders so without doubt it was a promising attack. Even without that the challenge was reckless as the defender is no where near the ball and lunges from a distance making contact with the attacker.

On the fourth one referees have been advised of their responsibility towards the safety of the players on the field. Referee have been reminded that they should identify and punish challenges where a player gives no consideration to an opponent's safety and to stay aware of illegal use of arms and elbows. Players have been advised that arm contact on a player's head in an aerial challenge is most likely going to result in a caution. So in this situation Yellow #5 raises his arm and makes heavy contact on the side of the defender's head. Under the current referee guidelines this is a caution so the referee was entirely correct to send the player off for a 2nd caution.
Players have to adjust to the way illegal aerial challenges are being sanctioned so the days of jumping with raised arms for leverage, making contact with an opponent's head are behind us and that players must expect sanction for these types of contact on opponents.

So for me the referee was entirely justified in issuing all four red cards and I would expect that of a FIFA badged referee.

I believe the key point here is that players on a caution have to adjust their conduct particularly in challenges as to not do so runs the high risk of a second caution and a dismissal. It is for that reason that teams substitute cautioned players so that risk is eliminated. If that is not possible or a team decides to take the risk then the cautioned player has to adjust accordingly in making challenges. If the question is asked of the referee they might not like the answer.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi John,
we are well aware the arm chair position is fraught with preconceptions and tainted by replay but real time on the FOP I have no serious issues with any of the referee decisions just a point to make about grassroots procedures on the VAR review which we DO NOT HAVE at the grassroots! Instead we listen the howls of parents and fans along the touchlines reminding us our decisions are NOT always the best one in their opinion! lol

The referee decision on the first direct red card incident when he showed only a yellow card as a reckless action. I was somewhat surprised given the AR was in direct sight that the CR did not take a moment to consult with his assistant before VAR thought it necessary to intervene?

The studs up was certainly worthy of a direct red and yes we might think the CR was hindered in line of sight but one crucial tidbit a CR could give his assistants in their pregame is, DO not let me make a mistake!

The CR is certainly not forced to accept AR input if his opinion differs, but, THAT input SHOULD be heard or signaled. Eye contact, tap back pocket is how a AR can signal to their CR, that incident was a red card in my opinion, without saying anything at all. (A tap of the top shirt pocket signals caution yellow!) At grassroots a bit of a discreet palm wave, a quiet chat to confirm?

The fact they are miked at the pro level or buzzer assisted ? How about. "Wow that was ugly, studs up high into the leg, looked red to me!" Who is to say to the decision making process, perhaps the CR did ask the AR who said nothing to change the CR s mind but the fact is that was a definite red card tackle! My central point to all, follow the guidelines & CRs use ALL input to arrive at the correct decision!

As the game progressed yellow made several tired rash late challenges likely because they were exhausted, yet that is no excuse if already warned by a previous yellow caution of a similar action. The tackles on their own merit seemed cautionable! The fact the players were previously shown a card is not supposed to influence the referee decision. In truth if an incident is a one time orangy incident that might be consideration or leniency but given here there is a preponderance of aggressive behaviour! If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!

The blue team scored but one goal given the yellow were reduced in numbers by these double yellows. It is likely the blue coach who was more upset! lol

Look at this match a few years back keep in mind no VAR back then but

https://youtu.be/5Kns7WotXek


1st caution VERY EARLY was rather soft! Likely referee was HOPING to set the bar to play fair. 2nd caution was STRAIGHT RED CARD MISSED! That tackle eventually forced RONALDO out of the match, Same dutch player was later soft cautioned for 2nd yellow thus red # 9 I think, helped out by the acting session of the next player he contacted
3rd caution again in my opinion soft especially given the harshness of the 2nd tackle only cautioned. Obtuse player on 4th caution & 5th caution WELL deserved reckless tackle & a follow up blatant USB handling minutes later, referee had no choice there!

Several acting jobs on both sides sigh

A few reckless tackles 6 to 9 but a lot of skirmishes and pretend injury
Number 10 could easily be a direct red
11 12 13 14 15 16 just dumb players

The player had themselves to blame but the referee did himself few favours in that he tried too hard not to send off, set the caution bar too low too early and misdiagnosed several critical match incidents not all of which are seen in this clip either.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi John,

First off, one thing I see at the pro-game which I really, really hate - is keeping the whistle in the mouth when carding players. It's a little thing, but it's one of the bad habits pro refs pick up. Never do this unless you want to lose more teeth than necessary - especially at parks level. Referees do get punched - a friend of mine left the whistle in his mouth running around, copped a ball in the mouth, and needed dental surgery.

The first red card, I agree with my colleagues - the studs up, late, with force, on the leg warrants at least a yellow - but when we can see how far up the leg is, it's a red. I knew immediately he wasn't giving a red as he didn't seem to see the seriousness of it. His view may have been blocked by the other blue player or even the yellow player committing a foul.

At grassroots, when you know something has happened and your view is restricted, it's a good opportunity to consult with your AR. It's difficult for the AR to know whether to call the ref over because they should only do so if they believe they've seen something the ref hasn't. I've had some ARs who would discretely tap their left pocket if I make clear eye contact here (which tells them I'm looking for an opinion), suggesting a red.

AR consultation very, very rarely happens at the pro game and I think the officiating is poorer for it. So often when VAR intervenes I'm left thinking a) should have been called live, and b) surely one of the on-field officials also had the right opinion. We can assume there is some discussion over wireless comms, but the right decision wasn't initially reached here.

Second, he's lunged in from behind with no attempt at all on the ball. Force was low and studs were down, though from behind so far from ball gives a fair chance for reckless - however, despite being in the defensive third, they have a great chance for a counterattack (look at the open players - you can see they're trying to build it). Easy card and he knew exactly what he was doing.

Third, this is a really bad foul and could be SFP - but it's also stopping a promising attack - we're on a fast attack here. We need to consider the opportunities present - a couple of marked attackers makes it a bit borderline, but there's an unmarked player just inside...everybody watching knows this is a great attacking build up, clearly stopped by a foul. Card. For the foul - slow it down player jumps at the opponent for the lunge, right leg is on front, left leg is behind but swings over. The attackers leg looks almost caught under the defender's body when he lands, and with the closing legs this is a bit of a scissors tackle - potential for serious injury.

Fourth, Easy yellow. Led with the elbow towards the player - that's reckless. Doesn't matter if he didn't mean it - all players know you can't go up like that. He acted with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent.