April 4, 2015

Video Training - Severity of Offences Series (1) - Solved

This is the first post of a new series called "Severity of Offences" that will appear regularly on this blog. It aims at improving your knowledge about and feeling for the correct level of punishment to be applied following challenges made by players, attempting to meet the standard implemented by UEFA and passed to Europe's national football association. Recent video clips will be deployed to illustrate the different criteria to be kept in mind when assessing tackles.

THANKS FOR PARTICIPATING!



Your opinion is needed and desired!

Feel free to explain your assessments of the below placed offences in form of a comment underneath the already prepared video titles. Or just answer the polls. Before watching and participating, I would like to remind you on the following Law 12 basics:

While players are making challenges, they can be either careless, reckless or using excessive force.

Careless means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
Disciplinary sanction: None - no disciplinary sanction is needed.

Reckless means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
Disciplinary sanction: Yellow Card - the player must be cautioned. It belongs to unsporting behaviour.

Using excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
Disciplinary sanction: Red Card - the player must be sent off.

In terms of using excessive force, you have to distinguish between serious foul play and violent conduct.

Serious foul play: A player uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play. A tackle that clearly endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Violent conduct: A player uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when NOT challenging for the ball.


Criteria for Consideration when assessing tackles:

- was the opponent hit? 
- intensity & force of the challenge and contact?
- speed of the challenge?
- intent and chance to play the ball?
- direction of the tackle: ball or the opponent's leg/foot?
- degree of danger for the opponent's safety?
- hitting point: foot, ankle, heel, calf, shinbone, patella? Low/high?
- height of the tackle: how far away from the turf (the higher, the more dangerous/serious)
- position and posture of the offender's foot: 
   - stretched or bent foot? 
   - contact with studs shown or rather "trailing leg"?


Video FEYROM1



The 3rd Team Recommendation: 
The referee wrongly awards a free-kick for the black-dressed team. Instead, he should have spotted the reckless tackle by black player #15, who used his studs with moderate intensity and a low hitting point. He should be cautioned with a yellow card. As the referee's line of vision might have been obstructed at least partially, the assistant referee should be encouraged to support the referee right at the beginning of the game.

41% of the users would have awarded a free-kick for the black team as well, while 59% agreed with a free-kick for the white team. 39% of all users agreed with our recommendation. (16/04)

FEYROM1 - Your Assessment

Foul by White Player - Careless (No Card)
Foul by White Player - Reckless (Yellow Card)
Foul by White Player - Using Excessive Force (Red Card)
Foul by Black Player - Careless (No Card)
Foul by Black Player - Reckless (Yellow Card)
Foul by Black Player - Using Excessive Force (Red Card) 


Video FEYROM2



The 3rd Team Recommendation:
ROM #16 makes unfair contact with the opponent's patella in a relatively targeted way. He uses a stretched foot with studs shown. While the intensity is between moderate and high, excessive force has been used from our point of view. The tackle therefore endangers the safety of the opponent so that the offender should be sent off with a red card for serious foul play. Issuing no card at all is not acceptable, no matter how early in the game this offence occurred.
The situation could be prevented by detecting the clearly wrongly executed throw-in...

29% of the voters agreed with serious foul play, 2 out of 3 users voted in favour of a reckless tackle only. 

FEYROM2 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 


Video FEYROM3



The 3rd Team Recommendation: 
FEY #19 goes into a challenge with the primar aim to play the ball. However, he uses a stretched foot and shows studs making unfair contact with the opponent's foot or rather ankle (please see how the ankle briefly bends, which indicates that the tackle is at least at the borderline of endangering the opponent's safety. But the tackle's intensity is only moderate and the hitting point rather low. Therefore a yellow card for reckless tackle should be given. Nonetheless the referee surely proofed courage in this situation, although his card-showing-procedure was far away from convincing (confusing sorting-out-process, too short showing-process).

74% agreed with this recommendation.

FEYROM3 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 

Video FEYROM4



The 3rd Team Recommendation: 
Although ROM #32 shows one stretched foot with "open studs", he does not make contact with his opponent this way. Instead, he tackles him recklessly with his other foot or leg without studs shown. The intensity is high, but as studs are not causing the contact, it should be deemed as a reckless tackle to be sanctioned with a yellow card - correct decision by the referee.

79% agreed with a yellow card.

FEYROM4 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 


Video PORBAS1



The 3rd Team Recommendation: 
The white defending player tackles his opponent when the ball is already shortly away. With a straight leg and studs shown 10-15 cm above the turf, he causes a strong, intense and dangerous contact with his opponent's heel without any chance to play the ball. He clearly endangers the safety of the opponent.
The referee had a 20° visual angle and had the chance to identify the high danger of this tackle, which should be deemed as serious foul play demanding a red card.

79% agreed with a red card.

PORBAS1 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 


Video NAPMOS1


The 3rd Team Recommendation:
White #47 makes unfair contact with his studs and slightly stretched foot, sliding into the challenge with some pace and intensity. The hitting point is the opponent's ankle (= high danger). Considering the intensity, force and already mentioned hitting point, this should be deemed as serious foul play requiring a red card. A 2nd yellow card is NOT enough. This tackle could be compared to video A1 in UEFA's R.A.P. 2014:2 (although comparisons are always problematic..).
As the referee's line of vision was clearly blocked the player's body, the fourth official (and maybe AR1) had the best chance to spot the danger of the offence.

For 76% of the users, this tackle required a direct red card, while 24% agreed with the 2nd yellow card issued by the official.
 
NAPMOS1 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - (2nd) Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 


Video AJADNI1


The 3rd Team Recommendation: 
The blue player makes a strong tackle from behind with small chances, but the clear intent to play the ball. The intensity is relatively high. The legs are rather low and remain on the turf.
UEFA demands a red card for serious foul play in comparable offences such as A24 in 2014:1 and A14 in 2014:2. If the referee considers the intensity of this tackle as high enough to interpret it as excessive force, which endangers the opponent's safety, he should send the player off. If he considers it only as reckless, which is reinforced by some arguments, he should only show a yellow card. In the game context, a yellow card was the better choice, so that the referee's decision (YC) a) cannot be considered isolaledly and b) is no clear mistake.

GREY AREA

79% voted in favour of a yellow card, 19% for a red card.

AJADNI1 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 

Video WOLSPO1


The 3rd Team Recommendation:
The yellow-dressed player truly jumps into this tackle with one stretched foot and studs shown 10-15 cm above turf-level. The intensity is high and the non-offending player is seriously hit at his heel. The offender clearly endangers the safety of the opponent and must be sent off with a red card for serious foul play.
It is unacceptable that this tackle was completely missed by the referee and his team.

Roughly speaking, 3 out of 5 voters favoured a red card, while 2 of 5 users voted in favour of a yellow card only.

WOLSPO1 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 

Video CITBAR1



The 3rd Team Recommendation: 
The offender's primar goal was to play and clear the ball. However, he came a bit too late and made unfair contact without studs at the opponent's upper leg. He therefore acted without precaution.
The tackle should be classified as careless so that a yellow card is not adequate based on the criteria for careless and reckless tackles.
You can however argue that this tackle would also justify a yellow card for reckless tackle as the type of the tackle indicates that the player did not care about the consequences for his opponent. A yellow card is therefore no clear mistake - but not our recommendation.

24% agreed with no card (careless), 71% supported the referee's decision (reckless).

CITBAR1 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force (SFP) - Red Card 

Video BARCIT1



The 3rd Team Recommendation:
The blue-dressed player has lost the possession of the ball and is clearly frustrated as a consequence. He violently kicks his opponent from behind with no chance and no intention to play the ball [a hint: just focus on the offender's mouth and facial expressions while he makes that tackle]. He uses excessive force and brutality while not challenging for the ball.
The tackle must be classified as a violent conduct requiring a red card.

71% got that spot-on.
BARCIT1 - Your Assessment

Careless Tackle - No Card
Reckless Tackle - Yellow Card
Using Excessive Force - Serious Foul Play - Red Card
Using Excessive Force - Violent Conduct - Red Card 

26 Comments:

  1. Your Assessments: FEY-ROM 1-4. Please reply to this comment in order to give your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4/4/15 20:57

      1: reckless black
      2: reckless tackle, could also be SFP
      3: reckless tackle
      4: reckless tackle

      ---
      ref7

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4/4/15 22:38

      1. reckless black
      2. SFP
      3. reckless / SFP (orange - I would prefer a yellow card)
      4. reckless

      HD

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4/4/15 22:44

      1 red card, foul by black player
      2 SFP, RC
      3 reckless, YC
      4 reckless, YC

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5/4/15 16:12

      1) Reckless, YC
      2) SFP, RC
      3) SFP, RC (if a RC is given in 2), otherwise YC: consistency)
      4) Reckless, YC
      --
      FrenchRef

      Delete
    5. 1) foul by black player - reckless
      2) careless
      3) reckless
      4) reckless

      Delete
    6. Anonymous6/4/15 13:17

      Clip 1 should call for some common sense. The white player makes a tackle, the black player does not see him coming as he tries to play the ball. What everyone sees is the tackle by the white player, and if the referee were to book or even send off the black player that would be a terrible decision, perhaps not by the letter of the law, but for the game. The players would feel a lot less comfortable and the referee's match control (which was not good, but for reasons other than this situation) would be much more difficult to keep. Players would probably throw themselves to the ground instead of trying to stay on their feet out of fear of accidentally stepping on a player throwing himself into a tackle, something that would reduce the quality of the match.

      I can absolutely accept the referee's decision to whistle the foul, maybe a dropped ball and a clear warning (simultaneous foul) could have been a better option.

      Delete
    7. I disagree with you here. Common sense can hardly justify to ignore the severity of an offence in this concrete situation. You would be right if the black-dressed player had really no chance to see the other player coming. But IMO he had it. Plus he was opening his studs into a direction where the ball definitely was NOT about to go.

      Your approach furthermore implies that some decisions that go against the universal perception of the majority in this stadium should not be taken. Of course decisions should not only be correct, but also accepted. But I see no problem here if the referee had stopped the match, awarded the free-kick to the correct team, took the appropiate disciplinary sanction and had SOLD the decision adequately (e.g. a hand gesture indicating "studs shown and down", normally done with a flat hand moved towards the ground, I hope you know what I mean)... communication & body language are key words.

      Oh and btw nobody in this stadium would have understood a dropped ball - I dare to say that hardly any supporter or even player would have been aware of this part of the LotG..

      Delete
  2. Your Assessments: POR-BAS1, NAP-MOS1, AJA-DNI1. Please reply to this comment in order to give your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4/4/15 20:58

      POR-BAS: SFP red
      NAP-MOS: SFP red
      AJA-DNI: reckless tackle

      ---
      ref7

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4/4/15 22:43

      1. reckless (I can support also red card)
      2. SFP
      3. reckless

      HD

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4/4/15 22:45

      POR BAS RC SFP
      NAP MOS RC SFP
      AJA DNI YC reckless

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5/4/15 16:17

      1) SFP, RC
      2) SFP, RC
      3) Reckless, YC
      --
      FrenchRef

      Delete
    5. 1) SFP, RC
      2) Reckless, 2nd YC
      3) Reckless

      Delete
  3. Your Assessments: WOL-SPO1, CIT-BAR1, BAR-CIT1. Please reply to this comment in order to give your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4/4/15 20:59

      WOL-SPO: orange :)
      CIT-BAR: careless tackle for me. clear try to play the ball, but no enough precaution.
      BAR-CIT: violent, red

      ---
      ref7

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4/4/15 22:45

      1. SFP
      2. reckless
      3. VC

      HD

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4/4/15 22:47

      WOLF SPO RC SFP
      CIT BAR YC RECKLESS
      BAR CIT RC VIOLENT CONDUCT

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5/4/15 16:24

      1) SFP, RC
      2) Careless. No card. But YC acceptable for me.
      3) Violent conduct, RC.
      --
      FrenchRef

      Delete
    5. 1) reckless
      2) reckless
      3) violent conduct

      Delete
  4. 1st Croatian League, I. Bebek

    1.) https://vimeo.com/124140110
    2.) https://vimeo.com/124140109

    Monaco/Arsenal, S.O. Moen
    3.) https://vimeo.com/123973585
    4.) https://vimeo.com/123973587
    5.) https://vimeo.com/123973588
    6.) https://vimeo.com/123973591
    7.) https://vimeo.com/123978060
    8.) https://vimeo.com/123978062
    9.) https://vimeo.com/123978063
    10.) https://vimeo.com/123978064

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bebek team / great calls

      Delete
    2. MON - ARS
      3) Bad team work
      4) excellent call
      5) ok
      6) YC
      7) ok
      8) ok
      9) YC SPA
      10) ok

      Delete
    3. On 3), that's the question. Was it bad teamwork via micro or could we also say that for AR1 this situation maybe looked like a clear headed from an attacker (and then he has no reason to consult anybody before raising the flag)? I think it was rather Moen's mistake to not overrule his colleague and waive his flag down - he had a clear view and actually must see that himself.

      Delete
    4. Surely it was extremely difficult for AR1 to see exactly who was the last to play the ball. If the communication equipment was in order and working, than the team must have communicated amongst themselves and correct information on who played the ball last, should have reached the AR1 who would not commit the mistake. If the comms were not working, than the situation should have been communicated within the team as in "good old times", by looks/signs/moves...
      I fully agree with you, Moen should have seen it all, send information to the team, take responsibility and overrule the AR1 if necessary.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger