Jump to content

 

 

Scott Brown claim of wrongful dismissal upheld

ian1964

By ian1964
in General Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

BrahimHemdani

BrahimHemdani 1

Posted
Posted (edited)
Serious foul play or recklessly dangerous play. Which would you rather be a victim of?

 

I need some clever bloke like BH to explain the difference. Does the former imply the use of a lethal weapon?

 

Thank you for that vote of confidence, Scott. I was a referee, I'm not sure how clever I am.

 

In my day as a referee, the distinction was quite easy. "Serious foul play" was something like a tackle that DID injure an opponent. The type where you might see a player run at an opponent with obvious malicious intent not just to foul i.e. trip the opponent but to cause him injury in the process. Everything else came under the banner of "ungentlemanly conduct" which was a bit of catch all like breach of the peace. So any kind of foul that the referee thought was serious enough for a booking but not serious enough for a sending off would be classed as UC. In those days it also covered what are now called "professional fouls" i.e. stopping a goalscoring opportunity, which nowadays is a red card.

 

However, today's rules are much more complicated and therefore, in my opinion, more difficult to apply.

 

According to the Laws of the Game [12]:

 

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

  • charges
  • jumps at
  • kicks or attempts to kick
  • pushes
  • strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
  • tackles or challenges
  • trips or attempts to trip

 

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

 

  • Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
  • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
  • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

 

Note that the wording was changed this season

 

Previously

12.4 Reckless – removal of ‘complete’ from definition

Reckless means that the player has

acted with complete disregard to the

danger to, or consequences for, his

opponen(…) (…)must be cautioned.

 

Explanation

There were legal concerns about the meaning /relevance of ‘complete’.

 

AND

12.5 Serious foul play– removal of ‘far’ from definition

 

Using excessive force means that the

player has far exceeded the necessary

use of force and is in danger of injuring

his opponent(…) (…)must be sent off.

 

Explanation

There were legal concerns about the meaning/relevance of ‘far’.

 

In my opinion the removal of these words makes it more difficult to distinguish between reckless i.e. a caution/yellow card and serious foul play i.e. ordered off/red card.

 

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)

holds an opponent

impedes an opponent with contact

spits at an opponent

 

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

 

The following must be considered:

  • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
  • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
  • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
  • touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement
  • hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement

(I have included the handball rule because it was a bone of contention last week.)

 

As an observation it would appear from the current rule that if you strike an opponent carelessly no further action ensues, if you do it recklessly it is only a caution and it is only if you hit someone hard enough to constitute "excessive force" is it deemed an ordering off offence.

 

Turning to Mr Brown then, it would seem that his case was that he was "reckless" i.e. he acted "with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" but that he did not exceed the necessary use of force and thereby endanger the safety of an opponent. I must admit that I do not understand the use of the word "necessary" in this context.

 

So the question would be how can you disregard the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent but not at the same time endanger the safety of an opponent? Quite frankly, how a referee is supposed to judge the difference between disregarding the danger to an opponent and endangering the safety of an opponent in the heat of the moment is beyond me, and I'm glad I'm not refereeing under these Laws.

 

For what it's worth, I would have sent off Brown for serious foul play because he launched himself at his opponent's ankle. The comparison has been made with Halliday's tackle on Roberts last week. Halliday launched himself with two feet but did not contact his opponents foot, he wiped him out as was said at the time, swept him away would be another way of putting, but Roberts was not injured and stood up straight away. So I think the referee was right to judge that "reckless" rather than "excessive force" but I'm not so sure about Beerman. I can't find a video showing that tackle now but at the time I thought it was more dangerous than Halliday and I don't think he could have had much argument if he'd been sent off.

 

I hope I've helped by detailing the considerations that come into play in these fine judgements. It would have been very interesting to hear the legal arguments.

 

As another aside; that's something that worries me about video referees. It will still be down to the opinion of the man who views the video. What next, video lawyers?

 

I'm old fashioned. If, in the opinion of the referee....... was always the rule. So a referee could always say, if you don't believe that was a goal, read about it in the papers. We're in a different world now of course.

Edited by BrahimHemdani
.
0
Link to post
Share on other sites
BrahimHemdani

BrahimHemdani 1

Posted
Posted
It looks as if the removal of these words makes it easy for hammer throwers to get away with things.

 

In theory "exceeds the necessary use of force " is a lesser standard than "far exceeds" but I think that removal of that word makes it more difficult to distinguish between that and "reckless". So yes, I agree.

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
ian1964

ian1964 10,429

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Former Scottish referee Charlie Richmond believes the decision to overturn Scott Brown’s red card was the wrong call.

 

Richmond also claims Andy Halliday’s challenge on Patrick Roberts in the Old Firm semi-final was only worthy of a yellow card. The ex-whistler appeared on Thursday’s Sportsound contest to discuss the overturning of Brown’s red card, which was downgraded to a yellow on appeal.

 

He said: “Surprised but not disappointed because of the way the system works. As well all know, the judicial panel is made up of an ex-referee, ex-player and ex-manager. “It’s on the incident alone. Unless you were out of the country during the week you would have been aware of the tackle in the Old Firm semi-final, but you cannot take that into consideration in any shape or form.

 

“For me, it’s a red card. You’d classify it as the old-fashioned ‘scissor’ tackle, where he goes in with the front foot and the second foot sweeps around and gets him on the Achilles tendon. Asked whether he thought Halliday’s challenge was a red, Richmond said: “No. I thought it was a ‘stop the game’. I would categorise with, if you’ll remember a few weeks ago, Hamilton were playing Ross County, and Giannis Skondras went in to stop the County player at the halfway line. He went in with one intention, to stop him playing. “Skondras got sent off but it was reduced to a yellow card. I would compare they two tackles.” Comparing Brown’s and Halliday’s, he added: “Halliday has went in with a bent leg, while Brown has gone in with two straight legs and scissored together.”

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/charlie-richmond-brown-tackle-was-a-red-halliday-s-wasn-t-1-4432212

0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.