Question Number: 19491

Mechanics 6/23/2008

RE: Rec (Grade 8) Under 19

dave bermingham of herndon, va usa asks...

Reading an article about a recent Euro 2008 match I saw the following: "[Russian central defender Denis Kolodin] was lucky to stay on the pitch against the Netherlands. Referee Lubos Michel showed him a second yellow card of the match just before full time for a clumsy tackle on Wesley Sneijder, but the linesman already had ruled the ball out of play before the challenge - and the card was rescinded."

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/8274802/Russia-coach-Hiddink-would-have-preferred-to-play-Italy)

I'm not sure I understand the reason the card was recinded. I see two reasons Ref Michel could have initially awarded the caution: Unsportsmanlike behaviour (UB)for a "reckless" tackle, or persistent infringement (PI). I understand that if the ball is not in play there is no foul so there would be no persistent infringement, but UB seems a more likely scenarion from the report. (I didn't see the game.) I had thought you should show a card for conduct meeting USSF's 7+7 guidelines for cautionable or sending-off offenses whenever it occurred throughout the referee's jurisdiction over the match (before, during, after). Decision 1 says on or off the Field of Play is irrelevent to the caution/sending-off. Upon closer reading of the Special Instructions, I see only violent conduct specifically mentioned for award while the ball is not in play. But players get carded for delay of game, dissent, and failure to respect required distance all the time while the ball is out of play, and I'm reasonably sure abusive language and spitting would earn cards during a stoppage as well. Could you explain the decision to reverse the initial caution and clarify when to show cards for misconduct occuring during stopages?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Dave,
the referee will be grilled in the post game to the miscommunication between him and the AR for the missed signal of the ball out of play (whether it was or was not is note debatable, as a fact concerning play it is uncontestable) When the referee accepted the AR signal he either knew he had created a very bad situation because the tackle he just witnessed and ruled on as a cautionable action since he DID show a 2nd yellow card to this player the first being in the 71st minute that player in law must be sent off. Or felt relieved because he was now convinced the caution was a poor decision and this gave him an out since he was now aware the caution was a 2nd one and felt perhaps it really was soft. Most surmise the AR was talking about the ball being out of play before the non foul in the chat the referee and AR had. Was there mention by the AR the caution was a poor decision only they know for sure.

The FACT is there was no longer one of the 7 fouls with a reckless element if indeed that was the initial impression the referee had, it is now only possible MISCONDUCT. The fact is a reckless tackle after play is stopped or when the ball is out of play is not a reckless tackle as there is no foul attached but more as VC (violent conduct ) if it was a deliberate action AFTER play had stopped.

The officials made an error, in fact I think they made several but they have that great escape clause since play has NOT restarted a referee CAN change his mind!

Quote
The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.
End Quote

This type of caution is listed as USB but USB has many faces as a catch all for unsporting actions. You mention only reckless not so. A reckless tackle or breaking up attacking play are both USB.

Quote
Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned
for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:
? commits in a reckless manner one of the seven offences that incur
a direct free kick
? commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack
? holds an opponent for the tactical purpose of pulling the opponent
away from the ball or preventing the opponent from getting to the
ball
? acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game
? verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart
end quote


It is difficult to mind read what he thought and why he choose the actions he did. If I was to offer an opinion I can only be glad it was not me.

In the stadium I belive they do NOT show highlights of game as we get to see on tv. The camera views of the ball and the incident were not very conclusive to the decisions the officials made BUT as facts of play they are uncontestable as an opinion. Only if there was a misapplication of law could a match protest be upheld. The Euro officials are likely very glad the Dutch decided not to press forard with a protest but decided they were beaten fair and square!

While there is no doubt the mechanics and signals here were messy nothing contrary in law was breeched. The referee will likely be asked to explain his actions and will be held accountable in some manner as to how those who rate such performances place importance on what he did and why he did it.

Perhaps it was just luck but in my opinion the result was a better fit to the match then reducing the Russians by a man. The interesting thing is in law if the referee HAD decided the misconduct was cautionable for the act itself and decided to follow thorough and send off the Russian player he is again supported in law as cautions for misconduct are as valid as cautions for fouls in the USB action as it is within the opinion of the referee!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

This arrived on 24th June 2008 from Thomas, one of our Canadian regular visitors. It reflects an E-mail sent out by the Canadian Soccer Association Director of Referees:

'I am sure many of you saw over the weekend Slovakian referee Lubos Michel show a red card for a second offence to Russian defender Denis Kolodin in the quarter-final match with Netherlands only to withdraw it after speaking with his assistant referee. UEFA have stated that the referee had been convinced by his assistant that Kolodin's tackle did not warrant a caution.

This demonstrates an example of cooperation between referees and their assistants; because they had the conversation and the decision was reconsidered. Regardless of all the modern technology (beep flags and earpiece communication) the face to face conversation was the major selling point in getting this decision correct.

I know that many commentators have speculated that the second caution had been overturned due to the ball being out of play when the challenge was made. For the avoidance of doubt you are reminded that the status of the ball has no bearing on the sanctioning of a player in this regard. If the assistant referee had failed to convince the referee that the challenge was not cautionable, then regardless of whether the ball was out of play the referee must apply the appropriate disciplinary sanction and in this case dismiss the player from the field. Of course the restart would revert to the where the ball was out of play.'