Search results

As as per the laws it was clearly a red. They should double the ban for frivolous appeals.

I can’t believe this is still rumbling on. It’s clear as day from the laws it’s a red. Two former refs have eloquently and concisely explained why it’s a red. What more is there to discuss?

No. The ref doesn’t judge intent. The ref judges the incident with the criteria stated in the laws.

Exactly.

Let me guess, Graeme Souness?

This.

Are you seriously suggesting we judge the severity of a tackle on whether the player is fit to continue? Jesus. Personally, I want to move away from the football of years gone by where the brute strength, or how hard they are, is seemingly the main attribute of a player.

It does. Or a reading of the laws closes it.

Maybe the players would adhere to the rules? Far simpler.

For you maybe. But not for referees, as intent plays no part in the laws.

Doh :lolol: It’s a fair cop!

What?

Okay. But the terms careless, wreckless and excessive force are clearly stated and referred to multiple times in the laws.

If you read the law about excessive force, you will see it implies the other two. The excessive force explanation states “in danger of injuring the opponent.” The wreckless explanation states “disregard to the danger to the opponent”. If you’re in danger of injuring someone you have shown...

If I wasn’t clear, here is the law https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

Just viewed the incident. It’s careless, wreckless and that’s a far amount of force on Bissouma’s shin. Clearly a straight red.

Careless - no card. Wreckless - player cautioned. Excessive force - sent off.

Straight reds are given for careless, wreckless and excessive force. This is the law of the game, which I think is clear and fair and professional footballers should know this. I viewed Stephens recent red against this criteria; ref was correct. I’ll do the same with this Hudds player.