Question Number: 21290

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/6/2009

RE: Adult

Jared of New York, NY USA asks...

Champion's League Semi-Final Second Leg, red card.

Watching the match, from the initial camera angle AND from the angle at which the referee was standing, it appeared that Darren Fletcher fouled Cesc Fabregas in an obvious DOGSO situation. The reverse camera angle, however tells a different story, in that before touching the player, Fletcher stuck his boot out and toed the ball away, and only wiped Fabregas out on the follow-though. While I know the point is moot (as it didn't affect the outcome), and as a referee I try to only constructively comment about other referees' decisions, there are comments flying around the internet about whether the red card was deserved or not. I was wondering what other opinions were on this.

FWIW, I'm a Manchester United supporter, yet, I feel like the red card IS defensible as SFP, but NOT as DOGSO (though I suppose a rose by any other name...). What do other refs think?

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I've seen 2 videos and am still not certain what happened. Fletcher got the ball and moved it out of the way. His studs were not aimed at Fabregas. It seems his trail leg inflicted the damage. From what I've read as to the overall game, I think I would not have called anything. If there was a foul the it's hard NOT to send off for DOGSO but I didn't see any Serious Foul Play.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

We are generally loath to criticize a call by a fellow colleague from an armchair view. A referee with integrity sees what he sees. I cannot fault the decision even if I might disagree with it, If I had the camera angle of view as a referee I could award a different outcome .
In a previous question I commented on the positioning of the AR and referee on this play. In my opinion I was less then impressed with the mechanics of this call rather than dispute the call itself! There was no reason for the AR to be so far trailing the play and again the referee needed to be at the very least top corner arc intersection of the penalty area to have a real look at this. His quick dash AFTER the whistle to ahem sell this call was way late!
I think the match was a (fait due accomplish) and the officials lost focus and relaxed a bit knowing the outcome seemed rather obvious. That rebound back caught them BOTH out!
I looked at the overall match picture and see this as NO way SFP!
Possible caution for reckless given he collapses the back legs with the trail leg but it was no force and certainly a realistic attempt to play the ball. The defender could hardly stop the sideways movement completely after clearing the ball! Sad he will miss the final and yes referees could consider the NEED to show a card rather than think they must do it to prove they are worthy in front of the assessor! The referee must look at the challange as FAIR or FOUL while the defender as a player needs to examine the reason to challenge at that stage of the match in that manner given they were up 4 to 0 in the aggregate of the two matches. This is where the removal of intent in the laws perhaps fails to address the needs of the match!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jon Sommer

The decision is not really defendable. There was no serious foul play from Fletcher, the ball obviously moved in a completely different direction, and unfortunately the officials put a bad taste in the mouth. The poor boy can't play in one of the biggest matches in world football because of a bad call to not just give the penalty, but not use his common sense. There was absolutely no need at that stage of the game to dismiss him.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 21317