AZ Keeper sending off

[Acker79]

Hmm, not really. Every man has a right to defend his person and his property.
Defending, in a public place, is seen in another light - and is more open to be judged.
If you saw two people fighting on West Street, is it okay for the person who was affronted to go free and claim all damages from the person who made the initial confrontation?
What if someone had shoplifted from your sports store, and you cornered them outside and when they put up resistance you gave them a shoeing on the road in the gutter? Would you be shocked to have a public affray charge levelled against you, or could you insist you applied completely necessary and reasonable force?
Shouldn't it be right enough to detain the miscreant, or is meting out on-the-spot punishment now the only-right-thing-to-do?

But a professional football pitch isn't a public place, in the sense that fans are not permitted to be there, so the parallel to west street or shoplifting doesn't apply.

 

[Gritt23]

What do you mean "if"? Of course he did.

I don't know "if" the law refers specifically to violent conduct "towards a player or official" or whether it specifically refers to "fans" or whether it's left completely open-ended as anything the ref considers "violent behaviour."

 

[NMH]

But a professional football pitch isn't a public place, in the sense that fans are not permitted to be there, so the parallel to west street or shoplifting doesn't apply.

But neither does the parallel with taking the law into your own hands.
Once the fan was incapacitated....on the floor......there were paid professionals there to take over.
The enthusiasm for giving the spectator a shoeing was apparent, unnecessary, and not permitted either on that piece of real-estate!

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

But neither does the parallel with taking the law into your own hands.
Once the fan was incapacitated....on the floor......there were paid professionals there to take over.
The enthusiasm for giving the spectator a shoeing was apparent, unnecessary, and not permitted either on that piece of real-estate!

I think you are being harsh about the keepers reaction. He has just been assaulted and the adrenalin would be flowing. The guy was on the floor and the keeper did kick him twice. He stopped when the steward had hold of the man. In the heat of the moment you can easily see why he kicked out. Look how he reacted as he moved away - he had his fists up and looks like he is about to swing at another steward. He had flipped into self-preservation mode. Clearly the keeper was completely working on reflex and instinct - I can't fault him for that or conclude that it was enthusiasm at all.

As for the rights and wrongs - here's a scenario for you. Albion are playing Man U in a cup final and Rooney is on fire. We're one-nil down and right on the back foot. Brighton fan runs on and attacks Rooney. Rooney reacts by defending himself and is therefore sent off. Brighton go on to win the game against 10 man United. Fan has "taken one for the team" and Brighton are FA Cup winners. Possible scenario - not nice to think that fans could materially affect a game in that way.

 

[Acker79]

But neither does the parallel with taking the law into your own hands.
Once the fan was incapacitated....on the floor......there were paid professionals there to take over.
The enthusiasm for giving the spectator a shoeing was apparent, unnecessary, and not permitted either on that piece of real-estate!

I think the homeowner parallel is more fitting. Fans entering the pitch are essentially trespassing, the pitch is the players' area and they have an expectation of safety there, and if someone illegally enters their area, they should be allowed to protect themselves.

 

[Acker79]

I don't know "if" the law refers specifically to violent conduct "towards a player or official" or whether it specifically refers to "fans" or whether it's left completely open-ended as anything the ref considers "violent behaviour."

It specifically mentions spectators.

"He is also guilty [of Violent conduct] if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person"

 

[Mellotron]

Instinctive reaction by the player who was just assaulted. Ref is entitled - in fact has a responsibility - to use common sense. Should not have red carded him. In addition - the ref did that "striding over being the big man - give the red from a long way off" thing which always inflames people. If he did want to send him off at least he could have got the skipper and maybe even the manager together with the player and explained first. Ridiculous, pompous management of the situation.

What I wanted to say, put better. Why do it in such a pompous, twattish manner?

The ref should get the manager, captain and player together, explain that he has NO choice but to give him a red card, and express sympathy with the situation.

 

[Gritt23]

It specifically mentions spectators.

"He is also guilty [of Violent conduct] if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person"

Ok, ta.

So, the ref has to decide - a bit like when you tackle a burglar in your house - whether you have used "excessive force" against the assailant. How ridiculous.

Presumably then, teh ref could have interpreted it as not being excessive if he felt a spectator running at you on the field of play need a bit of a showing to stop him jumping back up and twatting the keeper again.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

What I wanted to say, put better. Why do it in such a pompous, twattish manner?

The ref should get the manager, captain and player together, explain that he has NO choice but to give him a red card, and express sympathy with the situation.

They just don't though, do they. Seems many refs can't help themselves.

I have so much sympathy for refs having to deal with players who cheat all the time and fans who are schizo (love it when their "cheat" gets a penalty, send death threats when the oppo "cheat" gets one) but sometimes they don't make it easy to back them.

 

[Philzo-93]

If the ref has correctly applied the laws of the game, then they MUST change the laws, because that was a disgrace, and well done to the AZ manager for taking the team off..

Referee was spot on. There's self defence and then there is violent conduct. Multiple kicks to the stomach is violent conduct. He could've pinned him down but instead tried out kick boxing. Straight red. Disgraceful act by the manager!!

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Referee was spot on. There's self defence and then there is violent conduct. Multiple kicks to the stomach is violent conduct. He could've pinned him down but instead tried out kick boxing. Straight red. Disgraceful act by the manager!!

Can't agree with you - what if the guy had had a weapon and the keeper tried to pin him down and got stabbed? You're being rational from a distance. He had to react to an assault. Two kicks is not kick boxing - it was a reflex from a frightened man.

 

[Philzo-93]

Can't agree with you - what if the guy had had a weapon and the keeper tried to pin him down and got stabbed? You're being rational from a distance. He had to react to an assault. Two kicks is not kick boxing - it was a reflex from a frightened man.

Did he have a weapon?! No. Was the spectator drunk and therefore lost hand-eye coordination?! Yes.

Did the keeper do the right thing by using self defence?! Yes
Should he repetitively kick when stewards were a stones throw away?! No - red card for violent conduct

 

[Deleted member 18477]

in america can't you shoot at trespassers? i could be wrong, very wrong! it might have just been in a film lol. i have no idea what crazy rules they have over in the states. am i believing shit? someone must know on here!

the keeper is a legend. and fair play to the manager!

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Should he repetitively kick when stewards were a stones throw away?! No - red card for violent conduct

Twice - in the heat of the moment.

 

[Gritt23]

Can't agree with you - what if the guy had had a weapon and the keeper tried to pin him down and got stabbed? You're being rational from a distance. He had to react to an assault. Two kicks is not kick boxing - it was a reflex from a frightened man.

Exactly.

Manager was spot on to take his team off.

 

[Driver8]

I wonder what the ref would have done had he been the target and a player prevented him from getting attacked by kicking him.

The fan got what he deserved in my opinion.

 

[jackalbion]

looks like erdvise or whatever its called the dutch premier league have banned the footage from youtube because on every video it says copyright from the erdvise cv so maybe they don't want anyone to see it

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

its been removed

 

[Philzo-93]

looks like erdvise or whatever its called the dutch premier league have banned the footage from youtube because on every video it says copyright from the erdvise cv so maybe they don't want anyone to see it

Its all over Sky Sports News

 

[NMH]

in america can't you shoot at trespassers? i could be wrong, very wrong! it might have just been in a film lol. i have no idea what crazy rules they have over in the states. am i believing shit? someone must know on here!

the keeper is a legend. and fair play to the manager!

If someone trespasses into your home and you shoot them, and can show that it was necessary and that they were a threat to you - you can be excused for shooting them. If they fall outside of your home, it's a murder charge for you.