Question Number: 30912

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/18/2016

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

In the recent Arsenal v Swansea match Granit Xhaka was shown a straight red for a tactical (and cynical) tackle.

i totally agree he deserved a red card. No game should have this kind of foul and showing a straight red is a great way to help stamp it out.

That said, what basis of the LOTG did the ref use to justify the card.

The wording is as follows in reference to sending off offences:
(APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE, AS ALL CAPS ARE USED TO SEPERATE OUT MY COMMENTS FROM LOTG TEXT)

Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following
offences is sent off:
¢ denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by
deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area) CLEARLY NOT THAT.
¢ denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the opponents goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless
as outlined below) POSSIBLY, BUT LETS READ 'as outlined below'.
¢ serious foul play IF THIS WAS SERIOUS - THEM MOST TACKLES ARE REDS AS WELL
¢ spitting at an opponent or any other person NOPE
¢ violent conduct SAME AS SERIOUS FOUL PLAY
¢ using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures DOUBT IT
¢ receiving a second caution in the same match NOT THIS TIME

So is it in the DOGSO ?
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs. CLEARLY NOT

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless: CLEARLY NOT IN THE PA so the rest of this is redundant.
¢ The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or
¢ The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or
¢ The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc.) NOW WE MAY BE ONTO SOMETHING, BUT SEE COMMENTS ABOVE RE SERIOUS FOUL PLAY AND VIOLENT CONDUCT.
In all the above circumstances the player is sent off.
The following must be considered:
¢ distance between the offence and the goal ABOUT 50M
¢ general direction of the play AT THE SIDELINE
¢ likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball CLEARLY PROBABLY, BUT IN LIGHT OF ALL OTHER FACTORS - HMMM.
¢ location and number of defenders 50M FROM GOAL, NEXT TO SIDELINE. HMMM.


So what does the meaning of Serious foul play and violent conduct mean?

Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. NO EXCESSIVE FORCE, AND, IF THIS 'ENDANGERS' THEN MOST MATCHES SHOULD HAVE PLENTY OF REDS
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. CLEARLY FROM BEHIND, BUT ALSO CLEARLY NOT WITH EXCESSIVE FORCE

Violent conduct
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made. CLEARLY NOT EXCESSIVE FORCE
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible. DID NOT DO THIS


So what is the basis that justifies the red card.

Again, I am totally for the red card - and I am an Arsenal supporter " as we need more cards like this to help stamp the cynical fouls out of the game at all levels.
But until the LOTG game make it clearer to justify the straight red for this tackle, how can I in my next match, justify doing the same if the wording of the LOTG do not clearly cover this.

It was not with excessive force, no more endangered the player than dozens of other tackles, was a mile from the goal, not in the PA, had other defenders yet to be passed, was not a strike by the hand, not violent. The only thing to support it - was that he deserved it.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
The Arsenal player was sent off for serious foul play. Referee Moss was no doubt of the opinion that the tackle endangered the safety of an opponent. The player made no attempt to play the ball and he literally kicked the Swansea player. Some tackles end up as reckless hence the yellow card. This tackle went beyond reckless into a cynical kick of an opponent.
Perhaps on another day the referee might go with yellow as he feels it is reckless plus a doubt that the player tried to play the ball. The player will count himself lucky and may have to walk a very narrow line from there on for fear that another foul of any description will result in a 2nd card.
As you point out some other challenges go unpunished or with a caution only. Reasons can include a poor view, doubt as to the contact etc etc. I mentioned a foul that Referee Mike Dean deemed to be a caution on his first viewing in a Championship game and then when he saw he damage inflicted on the players shin elevated it to a red. First viewing from his angle of view caused him to think yellow. So those famous words In the Opinion of the Referee are never truer as in these types of call. ITOOT Referee this was a red card. IMHO he got that call correct as serious foul play.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
there is no doubt the red card was shown for SFP and there is very little argument to be otherwise. The angle of view, the way it which it occurs convinces the referee that red is the right decision and his AR support was also in clear agreement. Given everything you said what POINT was there for such a tackle in such a location? It was a kick delivered with no real chance to win the ball
SFP is simply a violent act that occurs while in theory the player was making some sort of effort to play the ball against an opponent during active play . As you KNOW VC can be ANY vicious act undertaken away from the ball or directed at anyone or during stoppages. Now it will be an opinion when the referee must decide if a reckless act is beyond redemption and falls into the excessive aspect of how we are to judge fouls especially tackles as most fouls are designed to break up attacks in a cynical fashion because they know the attempt is what it is and why they attempt it. Almost ANY SFP is by definition ALSO a reckless act that can be transformed into SFP just by the very nature of how it unfolds and the direct result or impact that is seen clearly by the official. A slide tackle applied with greater force that just misses the opponent but he falls over top and a lesser force tackle where the studs impact the ankle and knock him writhing to the ground in agony will have a dramatic effect on the way the incident is perceived even if technically both were deserving of a red card send off for being excessive in nature. When partaking of seminars with the best of FIFA referees they often discuss orangey situations, where the difference of going red versus staying yellow is an evaluation of the overall match itself not just the act. In effect almost a character driven decision based on more than just that incident. Granit Xhaka has been sent off 8 times since 2014.
You are not incorrect to think that technically cards could be shown in a far greater number given many of the shenanigans players engage in. This though was about the man himself as much as the stupidly of the unsafe and hurtful action of a no win tackle situation solely directed at the player,NOT to win the ball.
Cheers