Sportscene Watch 19/20

[wastecoatwilly]

7 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Is another person likely to be really hurt by the action?

You can't say that with the Frimpong one, Power's tackle was hard but fair but also put Frimpong out for weeks.
We are heading towards a non-contact sport where the players must be protected.

[DukDukGoose]

14 hours ago, Rodhull said:

When you're kicking someone off the ball how hard do you kick them for it to still be deemed necessary? How hard can you stamp on someone for it to be deemed brutal or excessive?

That's the definitions I was talking about. Maybe it is a failing at the FIFA/Ruling body level but I'll be shocked if anyone at the SFA can explain why Morelos kicking McKenna off the ball isn't excessive force using their own terminology apparently.

At the moment it just seems to be they say it is or isn't and that's the end of the matter with no proper explanation.

 

59 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

This is the problem with the rule 'excessive force' though. Excessive of what?

The will the player get hurt argument works for a normal slide tackle. For example, Sam Cosgrove against Celtic, the argument is that yes he got the ball, but the force he launched in with is in excess of what is required and put the player in danger (not syaing that's my view, but I can accept it).

For an incident off the ball i.e. Morelos against Aberdeen, what counts as excessive? Because for me kicking someone when the ball is nowhere around is in excess of what is normal, and how do you draw the line, in real time as to what level of force puts the opposition in danger?

Surely both Griffiths 'stamps' (on Ferguson and the Hamilton player) are deemed excessive force as he shouldn't be doing this at all?

A slap would be a red card despite it having little chance to injure the opponent.

[Guest JTS98]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

This is the problem with the rule 'excessive force' though. Excessive of what?

The will the player get hurt argument works for a normal slide tackle. For example, Sam Cosgrove against Celtic, the argument is that yes he got the ball, but the force he launched in with is in excess of what is required and put the player in danger (not syaing that's my view, but I can accept it).

For an incident off the ball i.e. Morelos against Aberdeen, what counts as excessive? Because for me kicking someone when the ball is nowhere around is in excess of what is normal, and how do you draw the line, in real time as to what level of force puts the opposition in danger?

It's certainly arseholish behaviour, but again the question is 'was he likely to hurt the opponent'?

Giving somebody a sly kick off the ball should be a yellow card. Absolutely booting somebody in a manner that might hurt them should be a red card.

I don't think that's difficult.

Same with Griffiths shoving opponents in the chest on Sunday. In days gone by we'd have seen him sent off for raising his hands to an opponent. But all he did was give a couple of them a trivial shoves in the chest. In a combative, physical, contact sport, do we want to reduce teams to ten men for stuff like that? I don't.

[Guest JTS98]

24 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

You can't say that with the Frimpong one, Power's tackle was hard but fair but also put Frimpong out for weeks.
We are heading towards a non-contact sport where the players must be protected.

I think that complicates things unnecessarily.

As you say, people will always get hurt in a contact sport. It's the referees job to make a call on why the player got hurt.

If someone steams in to a tackle in a way that could be expected to hurt the other player, then I think they should be sent off regardless of whether they win the ball. They have displayed a lack of concern for the safety of the other player.

If, during a bit of handbags, somebody shoves his forehead against another player's and gives a little push, that should be a yellow because nobody is likely to get hurt and it's just a bit of steam coming off.

I think people want to see this issue as complicated when it is in fact quite simple.

[Guest JTS98]

19 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

 

Surely both Griffiths 'stamps' (on Ferguson and the Hamilton player) are deemed excessive force as he shouldn't be doing this at all?

A slap would be a red card despite it having little chance to injure the opponent.

I'm afraid that's a logical misunderstanding.

The phrase 'excessive force' applies to the action that has taken place. That the action is not very nice is already covered by it being mentioned in the rules.

The 'excessive force' part applies to the way the action was carried out. So, if I kick you on the arse, it's obviously a bad thing to do. But if I give  you a soft kick on the arse, I get a yellow. If I boot you on the arse, I get a red.

It's the exact same process as a foul coming from a tackle. If it's not dangerous and not using too much force, then a foul tackle will be punished less harshly than a really forceful or dangerous tackle. The same thing applies to violent conduct.

Edited February 4, 2020 by JTS98

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I'm afraid that's a logical misunderstanding.

The phrase 'excessive force' applies to the action that has taken place. That the action is not very nice is already covered by it being mentioned in the rules.

The 'excessive force' part applies to the way the action was carried out. So, if I kick you on the arse, it's obviously a bad thing to do. But if I give  you a soft kick on the arse, I get a yellow. If I boot you on the arse, I get a red.

And intentionally leading with your foot in to a grounded opponents chest or knee?

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Merkland Red said:

And intentionally leading with your foot in to a grounded opponents chest or knee?

Again, depends on how it's done.

When you type it out like that it reads like a horrific assault. In reality, it was never likely to injure anybody.

Like I said before, if he had Cantona-ed the boy, then it would be different.

This was a nothing incident.

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Again, depends on how it's done.

When you type it out like that it reads like a horrific assault. In reality, it was never likely to injure anybody.

Like I said before, if he had Cantona-ed the boy, then it would be different.

This was a nothing incident.

We'll have to disagree. I feel both incidents were the mark of a coward.

[Dons_1988]

20 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's certainly arseholish behaviour, but again the question is 'was he likely to hurt the opponent'?

Giving somebody a sly kick off the ball should be a yellow card. Absolutely booting somebody in a manner that might hurt them should be a red card.

I don't think that's difficult.

Same with Griffiths shoving opponents in the chest on Sunday. In days gone by we'd have seen him sent off for raising his hands to an opponent. But all he did was give a couple of them a trivial shoves in the chest. In a combative, physical, contact sport, do we want to reduce teams to ten men for stuff like that? I don't.

I could have done this earlier but I have checked the rules and it does state excessive force 'in an incident off the ball' which answers my question. As my issue was that striking someone off the ball should be excessive by default, clearly it is not.

[nsr]

Shouldn't we also take into account that a small action such as a shove or a forehead push, while unlikely to cause harm, is likely to provoke retaliation or get other players involved, thus escalating into something worse? 

[wastecoatwilly]

19 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think that complicates things unnecessarily.

As you say, people will always get hurt in a contact sport. It's the referees job to make a call on why the player got hurt.

If someone steams in to a tackle in a way that could be expected to hurt the other player, then I think they should be sent off regardless of whether they win the ball. They have displayed a lack of concern for the safety of the other player.

If, during a bit of handbags, somebody shoves his forehead against another player's and gives a little push, that should be a yellow because nobody is likely to get hurt and it's just a bit of steam coming off.

I think people want to see this issue as complicated when it is in fact quite simple.

I think we're in agreement but stop sounding like Darryl Broadfoot please.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, nsr said:

Shouldn't we also take into account that a small action such as a shove or a forehead push, while unlikely to cause harm, is likely to provoke retaliation or get other players involved, thus escalating into something worse? 

Possibly. But I think the responsibility for how players respond to other players on the pitch lies with them as individuals.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I think we're in agreement but stop sounding like Darryl Broadfoot please.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, nsr said:

Shouldn't we also take into account that a small action such as a shove or a forehead push, while unlikely to cause harm, is likely to provoke retaliation or get other players involved, thus escalating into something worse? 

Not really. An adult should be able control their own reactions. If I punch someone because they pushed me, its my fault.

[nsr]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Not really. An adult should be able control their own reactions. If I punch someone because they pushed me, its my fault.

Perhaps, but I would like to see more done to irritating wee knobs who have a sly dig for the exact purpose of provoking an opponent into losing the head and getting sent off.

[DukDukGoose]

18 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I think we're in agreement but stop sounding like Darryl Broadfoot please.

Many are disagreeing with him but he put his point across in a clear and concise manner. You should try it Willy.

[Dons_1988]

16 minutes ago, nsr said:

Perhaps, but I would like to see more done to irritating wee knobs who have a sly dig for the exact purpose of provoking an opponent into losing the head and getting sent off.

A sly dig I agree with you, but a bit different to a bit of handbags like Griffiths was in on Sunday. Very difficult to enforce though.

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

It's certainly arseholish behaviour, but again the question is 'was he likely to hurt the opponent'?

Giving somebody a sly kick off the ball should be a yellow card. Absolutely booting somebody in a manner that might hurt them should be a red card.

I don't think that's difficult.

Same with Griffiths shoving opponents in the chest on Sunday. In days gone by we'd have seen him sent off for raising his hands to an opponent. But all he did was give a couple of them a trivial shoves in the chest. In a combative, physical, contact sport, do we want to reduce teams to ten men for stuff like that? I don't.

It's an and/ or condition

"Excessive force" can be dangerous play, likely to hurt an opponent 

Or

Exceeding the necessary use of force. 

If you commit a foul with any force, and what you have done was not necessary, then it's logically a sending off. 

In conclusion, you're havering, but the sfa agrees with you. 

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It's an and/ or condition

"Excessive force" can be dangerous play, likely to hurt an opponent 

Or

Exceeding the necessary use of force. 

If you commit a foul with any force, and what you have done was not necessary, then it's logically a sending off. 

In conclusion, you're havering, but the sfa agrees with you. 

No.

Violent conduct does not include challenging for the ball.

The 'havering' is all yours.

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made."

You're referring to 'serious foul play'.

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

For what it's worth, serious foul play carries the idea of endangering an opponent. So your assertion that committing a foul using any force should be a red card is miles off.

I don't know why people spend so long arguing and don't just read the rules.

http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/94/

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

No.

Violent conduct does not include challenging for the ball.

The 'havering' is all yours.

"Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made."

You're referring to 'serious foul play'.

"A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

For what it's worth, serious foul play carries the idea of endangering an opponent. So your assertion that committing a foul using any force should be a red card is miles off.

I don't know why people spend so long arguing and don't just read the rules.

http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/94/

I read them. 

From your link:

"If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free 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/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

 

I wasn't referring to "violent conduct"

I was referring to the definition of excessive force, which gets you sent off. 

If you have any other comprehension issues I speak real good English and am happy to help.