|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Mar 8, 2011 17:49:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Mar 8, 2011 19:25:09 GMT -6
Correct call, violent conduct can be against anyone on or off the field. I would be hard pressed (PUN INTENDED) to issue a red card, would maybe shake the player's hand (according to where his hand was when he tackled the streakier). Seriously though it was the correct call, the player was not in danger and should have let the authorities handle the situation
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 8, 2011 21:09:18 GMT -6
Sorry Tony but I disagree. There is no way this is violent conduct and the referee way overstepped his authority in issuing a red card. Law 18 should apply here, and I would imagine the match authorities overturned the send off
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Mar 9, 2011 20:51:07 GMT -6
Sorry Tony but I disagree. There is no way this is violent conduct and the referee way overstepped his authority in issuing a red card. Law 18 should apply here, and I would imagine the match authorities overturned the send off I didn't say it was a popular call, but it definitely fits the definition of violent conduct and popular or not it was the correct call. Would you say the same thing if the opposing coach runs out on the field and the same player tackles the coach? What gives any player the right to take upon himself the job of removing any person from the field by tackling them, or by any other physical means. I would say the removal of the streaker from the field was a job for stadium security. A little off the subject but if that happened in the U.S. and the streaker was seriously hurt you can believe the league and/or the player would be happy to get away with just paying medical bills. The lawyers would be waiting to see the player in court. I can see the lawyer asking "did you feel you were in imminent danger, did the streaker have a weapon that only you could see  " Where does the LOTG give you the right to attack someone that enters the field in an attempt to make a fool of themselves". Judge, were asking for payment of all medical bills for my client and also $40,000 for pain and suffering for the unprovoked attack on my client by this professional athlete. If higher authorities overturned the red card then so be it, but the referee made the correct call. |
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Mar 9, 2011 21:52:59 GMT -6
A little off the subject but if that happened in the U.S. and the streaker was seriously hurt you can believe the league and/or the player would be happy to get away with just paying medical bills. The lawyers would be waiting to see the player in court. I can see the lawyer asking "did you feel you were in imminent danger, did the streaker have a weapon that only you could see " Where does the LOTG give you the right to attack someone that enters the field in an attempt to make a fool of themselves". Judge, were asking for payment of all medical bills for my client and also $40,000 for pain and suffering for the unprovoked attack on my client by this professional athlete. You have been watching too many tv courtroom dramas. A person who enters a field like that is trespassing. Do you think that a jury is going to feel sorry for the individual who is trespassing on the field and running to avoid security? Personally, after some of the attacks in recent years (Monica Seles, the KC first base coach) I think that these guys should be tazered. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 10, 2011 10:22:51 GMT -6
There have been many instances where players have stopped people who ran into the field of play. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a player was shown a red card for it. Overstepping boundaries by the official, in my opinion. A spectator is not the same as a coach or substitute, as we both know officials have no authority over spectators
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Mar 10, 2011 12:32:29 GMT -6
A little off the subject but if that happened in the U.S. and the streaker was seriously hurt you can believe the league and/or the player would be happy to get away with just paying medical bills. The lawyers would be waiting to see the player in court. I can see the lawyer asking "did you feel you were in imminent danger, did the streaker have a weapon that only you could see " Where does the LOTG give you the right to attack someone that enters the field in an attempt to make a fool of themselves". Judge, were asking for payment of all medical bills for my client and also $40,000 for pain and suffering for the unprovoked attack on my client by this professional athlete. You have been watching too many tv courtroom dramas. A person who enters a field like that is trespassing. Do you think that a jury is going to feel sorry for the individual who is trespassing on the field and running to avoid security? Personally, after some of the attacks in recent years (Monica Seles, the KC first base coach) I think that these guys should be tazered. I have been around a lot of soccer fields and have never seen a NO-Trespassing sign post for the field. Some fields say no playing on the fields without permission of the league, but that's not the same as posting a no trespassing sign. I agree with you and have no problem with these types being tazered, but tazered by security. The players have no legal right to tackle the person or tazer them, it is all the same. I agree with Happy that Referees have no authority over spectators, BUT the referee didn't red card the spectator (streaker). In the same way the referee has no authority over the spectator what would lead you to believe that the player has authority to tackle the spectator (streaker). If a spectator in the first row is heckling a player (pro game) and finally the player has had enough and goes over and cracks him up side the head. Should the referee not red card that player, even though the referee may have felt the spectator had it coming. The league may even suspend the player as more punishment. If the soccer player wants to tackle people like this player did then come play American football. |
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Mar 10, 2011 12:50:03 GMT -6
You are incorrect. The player had every legal right to assist security by tackling the streaker. Now, once the streaker was on the ground and subdued, did the player have a right to kick the guy in the face? No. But, did he have a right to tackle the guy to the ground? Absolutely.
And, we are not talking about a spectator who is not on the field. A spectator from the stands is not interrupting the game and causing extra people to be on the field (the security). That is not a good analogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Mar 10, 2011 13:30:05 GMT -6
I have sent the question we are arguing about to Jim Allen at www.askasoccerreferee.com/?page_id=53.. I think Happy can agree that whatever Jim says is about as definitive as one can get from USSF. He's National Instructor Staff/National Assessor. and is very highly respected by everyone at the National Level.If he says the referee was wrong then I will certainly take that as the last word. Jim's has had this site many years and it was formally recognized by USSF a few years ago and now he is assisted by. * Dan Heldman, National Instructor Staff * Alfred Kleinaitis, USSF Manager of Referee Development and Education * Paul Tamberino, USSF Director of Referee Development * Brian Hall, USSF Manager of Assessment and Training * David McKee, USSF National Director of Assessment (assessment matters) * Ulrich Strom, National Instructor and National Assessor (matters in general) I will not argue the point any longer, hopefully Jim will post the answer to this in a few days. |
|
|
|
Post by Ronaldinho on Mar 10, 2011 14:35:13 GMT -6
This is a pretty interesting conversation. I think the player was just doing what he thought was the right thing to do, and it's really unfortunate that all this has come up. The guy was devastated to be sent off, in his mind just taking care of a problem without any idea such a harsh punishment would result. But if the rules prevent a player from doing this, you can't argue with the rules, and it's just rotten luck for the guy. In the future hopefully all the players will know the rule. I'll be really interested to see what Jim determines.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Mar 10, 2011 16:00:48 GMT -6
Well I got the answer much quicker than I expected, Jim answered the question with an e-mail, he may have also answered it in forum, but I didn't look.
Here's his answer:
The call was correct under the Laws of the Game. There were plenty
of security people ready to grab the streaker, but Dorchester's
player/coach pre-empted them and certainly deserved to be sent off
for violent conduct. Of course, "correct" is not always the right
thing to do, but each referee must make up his own mind. If I were
to send this to Chicago for the "official" seal of approval, I would
have to say "send him off."
In my opinion there is no longer any doubt about this question. I will also say that I if I was in the games as a player or official that down inside I would feel that the streaker got what he deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronaldinho on Mar 10, 2011 17:25:27 GMT -6
Well it seems the decision was correct. Thankfully everyone realizes the guy was just trying to help the situation, and I hope no further action will be taken against the player like I read might happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pitchstalker on Mar 10, 2011 17:44:29 GMT -6
A very interesting discussion...I Read most of the discussion before watching the video.
While I can agree that the ref is within his rights to send the player off...as a coach of either team I wouldn't think the "spirit of the game" would warrant affecting the outcome by sending a player off for this.
I am, I guess, in the minority, however, in that I don't think the guy "got what he deserved". Is he an idiot, yes! There are security paid to handle those situations...and they are paid to handle it a certain way. Just because a guy is an idiot give an athlete the "right" to sling him violently to the ground, unless he felt physically threatened in some way and felt the need to protect himself. I don't think that was the case here...the guy had no place to hide any weapons ;-P
I wonder how the response might be if the guy suffered a "freak" neck injury because of the "tackle".
I might be in the minority, but I say the guy shouldnt have been carded BUT had absolutely no cause to tackle the guy and should hope he isn't charged with assault.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 10, 2011 22:19:17 GMT -6
So if a dog wanders onto the pitch and a player grabs him to remove the dog I guess we'll need to send the player off for that as well...
Spirit of the game and law 18 apply here. Of course, we don't know how long he had been eluding security and if he said anything threatening to the players.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 10, 2011 22:21:28 GMT -6
And please note the sections in Mr Allen's answer that are in quotes. Certainly leads me to belies that the resulting card was harsh and against the spirit of the law, even if it meets the letter
|
|
|
|
Post by Steven Gerrard on Mar 11, 2011 8:49:51 GMT -6
While I am not disputing that the decision may have been technically correct under the LOTG, the decision by the ref to issue a red card was a terrible one. The ref should have never gone to his whistle. Heck, apparently even players on the other team were pleading with the ref to not issue the card. If the card had never been issued, no one would have said a thing about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Mar 11, 2011 9:32:45 GMT -6
And please note the sections in Mr Allen's answer that are in quotes. Certainly leads me to belies that the resulting card was harsh and against the spirit of the law, even if it meets the letter I think this argument can come to an end: The original argument was that the referee did not have the authority to issue the card. I think now everyone agrees that he definitely had the authority. Also everyone feels that under the discretion the LOTG grants referees in this type of situation (in spirit of the game) he should have used that power to not issue the card. |
|
|
|
Post by futbolislife on Mar 11, 2011 10:26:10 GMT -6
The referee in issuing a red card did what I call "digging a hole". It's apparent that the players did not want this card. Each side, the fans, etc. In this short clip, I wonder "did the game really need this card?". By the reactions of players, the answer is likely not. While I am not advocating doing what players and fans want, I am saying that a referee is always wise to consider what level of discipline is necessary for control of the game/players and enjoyment of the spectators. By his actions, all this referee did was to get a ton of BS which he likley never recovered from. I would bet his authority was diminsihed for the remainder of the game. Hence, he dug a hole and threw himself in it to be buried little by little.
Just my opinion.....
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygalinto on Mar 11, 2011 10:50:43 GMT -6
The referee in issuing a red card did what I call "digging a hole". It's apparent that the players did not want this card. Each side, the fans, etc. In this short clip, I wonder "did the game really need this card?". By the reactions of players, the answer is likely not. While I am not advocating doing what players and fans want, I am saying that a referee is always wise to consider what level of discipline is necessary for control of the game/players and enjoyment of the spectators. By his actions, all this referee did was to get a ton of BS which he likley never recovered from. I would bet his authority was diminsihed for the remainder of the game. Hence, he dug a hole and threw himself in it to be buried little by little. Just my opinion..... I agree with your statements I think what you're saying was expressed by Jim Allen in his response.
Of course, "correct" is not always the right thing to do, but each referee must make up his own mind. |
|
|
|
Post by itsthetalons on Mar 13, 2011 22:07:18 GMT -6
Ridiculous and completely overstepping his authority. As a referee, that has been at it for 16 years, I would not have issued a red. Law 18, spirit, would override any other law. I have watched the video several times and it didn't seem as if security were pursuing the streaker in a reasonable fashion.
|
|
" Where does the LOTG give you the right to attack someone that enters the field in an attempt to make a fool of themselves". Judge, were asking for payment of all medical bills for my client and also $40,000 for pain and suffering for the unprovoked attack on my client by this professional athlete. 
