Footballer sent off for tackling streaker

[m00nie]

something to try and lighten the mood...

l.o.l.l

[SOCCERROO FOX]

Was just going to post this what a disgraceful descion by the ref.

DB11 What would you have done?

[purpleronnie]

Looks like he's a 'little' self conscious.

[Houdini Logic]

I've got to say when I first read this I thought the Ref was a joke, but after seeing the video I think he was absolutely right.

The player body slams the guy and could have seriously injured him. Keep out of it and let the professionals (if that's what you call them) do their job

[Finnegan]

I've got to say when I first read this I thought the Ref was a joke, but after seeing the video I think he was absolutely right.

The player body slams the guy and could have seriously injured him. Keep out of it and let the professionals (if that's what you call them) do their job

Oh come on, it was never going to kill him. I'm the last person that's usually advocating rough, authoritarian justice but the guy's a blatant nob and he just gets thrown to the ground is all. That's how American security deal with streakers and pitch invaders on a regular basis, just because ours are so paranoid of litigation they mince around the pitch pathetically chasing him for a bloody eternity that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do.

Harder tackles than that go in every week on rugby pitches around the country, amateur and otherwise.

[Bert]

Fair play to the opposition team for levelling the game up by taking a player off.

[m00nie]

I've got to say when I first read this I thought the Ref was a joke, but after seeing the video I think he was absolutely right.

The player body slams the guy and could have seriously injured him. Keep out of it and let the professionals (if that's what you call them) do their job

but the officials were all old and couldnt cope.

also what would happen if the streaker attacked the ref? im sure he would want the players to intervene then ??

if the fa source is right and the red card is to be squashed then surely they are saying the ref over reacted also?

as bert says though was good of the other team to even things up.. (reminds me of when the goal nearly went in the time giving it back to the keeper aftet an incident and the manager said would have let score a goal unchallenged to even it out )

[millzi]

Ridiculous to be sent off for it, maybe if the stewards had a little more haste and effort he wouldn't have had to do it! Stewards wouldn't have got in any trouble had they done the same thing (Yes, I know it is their job) so why should the player be sent off just for stopping the idiot!?

[Unit]

I wonder if he'd have not been sent off if he just rugby tackled him rather than try and snap his neck off

[StanSP]

I would have done the same thing the player did. Stewards didn't go in to do it straight away and that would have pissed me off too! They're just walking around for about the first 10 seconds letting him make an absolute tit of himself. Absolute joke of a decision to send the player off.

[Zingari]

i would think the ruling is that a player can be sent off for violent conduct . i don't think it states whether that is against a player , official or spectator

the streaker maybe a twat , but i think the ref was right to send him off

[LCFCmatt]

Dad? Is that you? How embarrassing

[ajthefox]

The reaction of both sets of players says it all.

The streaker was taking the piss, the stewards couldn't get anywhere near him and a player took him out.

Ridiculous decision.

[MikeyT]

Stupid, stupid decision by the ref. I think most of us here would have done the same thing. The guy was majorly taking the piss and the stewards were just casually walking to get him and making no attempt to hurry. Fair play to the player for doing what he did. .

[Haydos]

On the whole a crazy decision but he seems to be only following the rulebook, he is getting moderated after all. Discretion needs to be used in situations like these.

[samjohnson]

No way a sending off.

[millzi]

Does anyone know if the red card was revoked or his ban stands?

[lcfcadam]

I'm doing the ref's course at the moment and the (very experienced) guys running the course all agreed that the ref technically did the right thing by the rules (violent conduct on the field of play doesn't differentiate between players and anyone else) but in reality the decision was shocking "event management" - he should have stayed out of it and kept his credibility rather than make that decision and end up with the rest of the game descending into a farce (which is apparently what happened)

[DB11]

Was just going to post this what a disgraceful descion by the ref.

DB11 What would you have done?

Referee had little choice. I doubt he'd have wanted to do it, but it's a clear act of violent conduct. The referee will have been being assessed and if I had a choice of give the expected decision and players are happy, but get absolutely slaughtered by the assessor for not sending the player off for clear violent conduct, or send him off and have players unhappy with me for rest of game but get a good assessor mark (want to be refereeing at highest level possible) then it's pretty clear cut.

If your boss told you to do something that would piss everyone in the office off, but you'd get promoted to better office and pay so not see those again, and if you refused would probably be suspended (therefore little chance promotion and a bad reference) it wouldn't be a hard decision would it?

You have to look at it from referee's point of view; he has no choice and I bet he didn't want to.

[StanSP]

Player escapes ban for tackling the mankini man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12734470

[millzi]

Player escapes ban for tackling the mankini man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12734470

I was just coming back to this post this, you beat me to it

[lcfcadam]

Referee had little choice. I doubt he'd have wanted to do it, but it's a clear act of violent conduct. The referee will have been being assessed and if I had a choice of give the expected decision and players are happy, but get absolutely slaughtered by the assessor for not sending the player off for clear violent conduct, or send him off and have players unhappy with me for rest of game but get a good assessor mark (want to be refereeing at highest level possible) then it's pretty clear cut.

If your boss told you to do something that would piss everyone in the office off, but you'd get promoted to better office and pay so not see those again, and if you refused would probably be suspended (therefore little chance promotion and a bad reference) it wouldn't be a hard decision would it?

You have to look at it from referee's point of view; he has no choice and I bet he didn't want to.

See what I said before you. This was coming from two guys who have been in professional refereeing for years, both stating without doubt that it was the wrong decision in the circumstances:

I'm doing the ref's course at the moment and the (very experienced) guys running the course all agreed that the ref technically did the right thing by the rules (violent conduct on the field of play doesn't differentiate between players and anyone else) but in reality the decision was shocking "event management" - he should have stayed out of it and kept his credibility rather than make that decision and end up with the rest of the game descending into a farce (which is apparently what happened)

[Jimothy]

See what I said before you. This was coming from two guys who have been in professional refereeing for years, both stating without doubt that it was the wrong decision in the circumstances:

I think a lot of the new young referees are almost like bank telephone workers. They work off a script, or a set of guidelines and feel they can't deviate from that. There is no common sense any more with the younger refs and it's just well that law says that, so I have to.

Like you say in this case it's awful event management. When ever player from both sides are angry at the decision, then obviously the game is going to descend into chaos I think the thing some refs need to remember is that you can send players off in these situations, but you don't have to.

[DB11]

See what I said before you. This was coming from two guys who have been in professional refereeing for years, both stating without doubt that it was the wrong decision in the circumstances:

I'll highlight one of your points; he ref technically did the right thing by the rules. This is all the assessor will have been looking at!!!!!! I'll also highlight the LOTG

A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.

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.

Morally of course it was the wrong decision, but when an assessor is there and you want to get promoted you have to do it.

If that happened on my game on a Saturday afternoon would I send him off? Of course not. There's no one there observing me and it's what's best for the game.