Sent off for tackling pitch invader

[Acker79]

But surely the fact that they dont apply all other laws to the letter, would have suggested he didnt need to send him off. Its not as if this happens every day, whereas you have to apply the offside law strictly, otherwise whats the point of it. This law is arguable whether it even applied, so I would say the ref is being an idiot for what he done. I would bet a pound to a pinch of shit, at least half the players swore at him during his moment of madness, if you've ever been in a position like that you will know thats a given, but he didn't brand a load of yellow or red cards.. or did he? Are you telling me he booked or sent off every player who swore during the course of the game like the laws of the game require him too?

And even judging by recent events, how can you even begin to try and judge the invaders intentions. Its 99% certain he was just being a pratt, but why take the risk?

I do wonder if/when you think it becomes acceptable to act outside the laws of the game. So what if the ref was hit like you see in other clips on this thread, should the players help out, should they man handle the offender to the ground? Or just stand by and wait for the proper people to arrive on the scene? What law of the game gives them the right to do that, or would you then like them to use their common sense. Where do you draw the line, and where is this line written down in the laws of the game?

The fact the FA seems to be considering quashing the red card doesn't help your argument much. As I said above, the FA going against refs and doing this type of thing does not happen very if ever. But then if the powers that be says its okay and reserve the red card, will you change your opinion?

No, I won't. Because my opinion isn't that the guy deserved a red card, it isn't that the law is a good one. It is that the law as it is explains the ref's decision. He acted in accordance with the laws of the game, and it seems harsh to criticise him for it, especially to the personal level it has come.

But by Ackers reasoning, the laws of the game would overrule making a citizens arrest and the laws of the land.

Believe me, there's many in the FA who think like that as well!!!

Where did I say that? I did not. I have not spoken of citizens arrests, or laws of the lands. The only time I've mentioned the law of the land is when Brovion chose a crime for comparisons sake that I thought was disproportionate.

No. Is it not an offense for a fan to run on the pitch? Ever been to a football ground? Or maybe that law should not be applied here, because he was just having fun. For someone who thinks the ref was right, you seem to like to pick and choose what laws should apply where!

What is more similar:

-mugging someone, and running on a football pitch
-going on a lawn you are not allowed on, and running on a football pitch?

For me it is the latter, but of course, people are more appalled by muggings than some scamp trespassing on someone's lawn, which is why Brovion's comparison seems a little unfair to me.


Besides, you are starting to confuse two issues. The guy who ran on the pitch should, and likely will face action for running on the pitch. I have no argument with that.

But that is irrelevant when it comes to whether the ref was right for thinking that the violent conduct law applied to the one player out of 22 who decided to not leave it to the stewards who were in the process of doing the job they were employed to do.

 

[Acker79]

Well that's another debate. The point is there are two issues at stake here. One is a purely football offence where I agree the ref acted within the laws of the game.

And that's all I'm arguing

He may indeed be an anally-retentive wanker far more interested in a strict intrepretation of the very letter of the law and without an ounce of common-sense in his pea-brained, one-track mind - but it could be argued that he WAS within his rights.

Well, that and that since he was acting within the lws of the game such personal insults seem a little unfair.

The other issue was that the pitch invader had broken one of the many bylaws surrounding professional football in this country and the player, showing commendable public spirit, had helped the stewards to enforce the Regulations. He didn't do it straight away, but when it became obvious that the stewards couldn't catch him, and indeed were being made to look foolish, he stepped in to help.

But since you bring this up... The stewards weren't exactly given much chance to act before the player stepped in. It's not like the guy was running around for five minutes. The video last 1m20s, and the guy is tackled after 40 seconds. This is a non league game without an abundance of stewards, the guy kept running as if he was going to leave the pitch, the stewards are closing him down from several angles, boxing him in, and looking at their proximity they would have had him in less than 20 seconds more. They were taking action, they weren't wheezing as this young kid ran circles around him, they weren't struggling to catch him, they were tactically limiting his options, closing him down when the player just burst through and tackles him.

I don't disagree the guy was wrong for running on the pitch, and I fully expect action to be taken as it should. But if you think the player tackled him out of some sense of civic duty you must be having laugh. He did it because he was angry at he guy for interrupting the game.

 

[Mr Burns]

No, I won't. Because my opinion isn't that the guy deserved a red card, it isn't that the law is a good one. It is that the law as it is explains the ref's decision. He acted in accordance with the laws of the game, and it seems harsh to criticise him for it, especially to the personal level it has come.

But that is irrelevant when it comes to whether the ref was right for thinking that the violent conduct law applied to the one player out of 22 who decided to not leave it to the stewards who were in the process of doing the job they were employed to do.

Just confirms what I thought about you. A bit of a pratt!!

You're agruing the refs case even though you dont agree with it. As I said, you'd argue black is white. Although the above does look somewhat of a climbdown.

Also as stated by another poster, and also by the club involved, the stewards were not taking care of it, so to say that is just wrong.

Still be interested to know if/when you think it becomes acceptable to act outside the laws of the game. So what if the ref was hit like you see in other clips on this thread, should the players help out, should they man handle the offender to the ground? Or just stand by and wait for the proper people to arrive on the scene? What law of the game gives them the right to do that, or would you then like them to use their common sense. Where do you draw the line, and where is this line written down in the laws of the game?

But then again, I probably wouldn't want to know, because you do come across as a complete pratt, arguing someones case on here when you don't agree with them!!! As I said earlier, there are many rules of the game the refs and no doubt inclduing this one on that very night, choose not to apply to the letter of the law. The fact that this ref applied this law to the letter, in the circumstances makes he a complete and utter pillock, and hopefully this will be confirmed by the FA when they squash the red card.

 

[Mr Burns]

But since you bring this up... The stewards weren't exactly given much chance to act before the player stepped in. It's not like the guy was running around for five minutes. The video last 1m20s, and the guy is tackled after 40 seconds. This is a non league game without an abundance of stewards, the guy kept running as if he was going to leave the pitch, the stewards are closing him down from several angles, boxing him in, and looking at their proximity they would have had him in less than 20 seconds more.

Now you are seriosuly seeing things you want to see to back your case. Thats so funny its sad.

 

[Acker79]

You're agruing the refs case even though you dont agree with it. As I said, you'd argue black is white. Although the above does look somewhat of a climbdown.

I don't believe I've climbed down at all, perhaps I've just explained myself more clearly.

Also as stated by another poster, and also by the club involved, the stewards were not taking care of it, so to say that is just wrong.

Wait, another poster said it? But not just them, but the club who had someone sent off and are trying to get it overturned said it? Well then, I guess I must be imagining seeing the stewards closing in on him in that video. If the club didn't feel like the stewards were doing anything, why did only one player take action?

Still be interested to know if/when you think it becomes acceptable to act outside the laws of the game. So what if the ref was hit like you see in other clips on this thread, should the players help out, should they man handle the offender to the ground? Or just stand by and wait for the proper people to arrive on the scene? What law of the game gives them the right to do that, or would you then like them to use their common sense. Where do you draw the line, and where is this line written down in the laws of the game?

I honestly don't know. It would be something I'd judge on a case by case basis.

The fact that this ref applied this law to the letter, in the circumstances makes he a complete and utter pillock, and hopefully this will be confirmed by the FA when they squash the red card.

If recent history indicates anything, it's that the FA are as much utter pillocks when it comes to altering referee's decisions as the referees themselves.


(What's with everyone putting two ts on prat? Is it some new (or old) reference I'm not getting?)

 

[Acker79]

Now you are seriosuly seeing things you want to see to back your case. Thats so funny its sad.

Watch the video again. One steward comes on from the corner flag to the right, one from roughly the half way line, one coming from the left, and as they walk towards him, the pitch invader runs in smaller circles.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

What is clear, Mr Burns is an angry, angry man.

 

[Mr Burns]

I honestly don't know. It would be something I'd judge on a case by case basis

So a ref gets hit and you will decide whether or not you think players should help out on a case by case basis?? That comment proves you are a complete cock.

It is lonely up there on your pedastal?

 

[Mr Burns]

What is clear, Mr Burns is an angry, angry man.

I'm not angry at all. Just cant beleive how far up their own arses some people are!

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I'm not angry at all. Just cant beleive how far up their own arses some people are!

I really do think common sense should prevail here. I don't believe he should be sent off. I am sure there is a rule for exceptional circumstances.

If you follow the letter of the law, he should still have been sent off, even if the streaker was a potential menace. Would the referee had sent him off if the red carded player was defending himself or another player?

 

[Mr Burns]

I really do think common sense should prevail here. I don't believe he should be sent off. I am sure there is a rule for exceptional circumstances.

If you follow the letter of the law, he should still have been sent off, even if the streaker was a potential menace. Would the referee had sent him off if the red carded player was defending himself or another player?

Thats the whole point though Mr Fun. Common sense is all that was called for. Refs don't follow every single law by the letter, so why here. It wasn't really violent. If the player had stuck the nut on him as they went down, maybe send him off. But hes just dragged him to the floor. The ref has made so much more out of it than needed, and hopefully this will stall his career, because no one want to see refs like that anywhere near the football league.

 

[Acker79]

So a ref gets hit and you will decide whether or not you think players should help out on a case by case basis?? That comment proves you are a complete cock.

Whether a player should help out depends on...

How is the ref hit? is it a slap friendly slap like some cheeky chappy taking liberties? Is it repeated punching about the face in a vicious assault? Is it a single punch before running off and trying to evade capture?
Is the ref standing up for himself? I believe at least one used to bein the police so woul have some self defence training, I presume, at least one other was reported as being trained in martial arts.
How much danger is there to the player stepping in?
How much danger is there to others if a player steps in?
How close are the police/stewards?
Is the pitch invader likely to start attacking other people?
Would a particular player helping the ref antagonise more in the crowd (for example should Diouf try to pull a celtic fan off a ref at celtic park?)

 

[Mr Burns]

Whether a player should help out depends on...

How is the ref hit? is it a slap friendly slap like some cheeky chappy taking liberties? Is it repeated punching about the face in a vicious assault? Is it a single punch before running off and trying to evade capture?
Is the ref standing up for himself? I believe at least one used to bein the police so woul have some self defence training, I presume, at least one other was reported as being trained in martial arts.
How much danger is there to the player stepping in?
How much danger is there to others if a player steps in?
How close are the police/stewards?
Is the pitch invader likely to start attacking other people?
Would a particular player helping the ref antagonise more in the crowd (for example should Diouf try to pull a celtic fan off a ref at celtic park?)

Okay you got me. Hook, line and sinker. Good wind up! I thought this sort of wind up went out when Beadle died... well done, good one

 

[GT49er]

Thanks to whoever posted the relevant laws of the gtame to clarify this. Yes, according to the laws, the ref was right to send him off - but, what is clearly the case here, is that it is just another example that shows the law is an ass.

I remember an incident at Hampden in the Scotland England match back in to 70's, when people running on to the pitch was a problem - a Scottish supporter came on and disrupted the game - and Gordon McQueen (I think it was McQueen anyway - it was a long time ago) settled the problem with the highest, hardest, two footed studs-up tackle I've ever seen! Stewards and ambulance men half dragged half carried the carcass off, and the crowd cheered!

 

[Mr Burns]

Thanks to whoever posted the relevant laws of the gtame to clarify this. Yes, according to the laws, the ref was right to send him off - but, what is clearly the case here, is that it is just another example that shows the law is an ass.

That law was probably brought in after Cantana done the Palace scum over a few years back. I doubt if even the FA thought any ref would be stupid enough to apply it in the way his arse did. I'll bet the ref will be lucky to ref a Sunday league football final in future. Not one of the games finest!!

 

[Brovion]

And that's all I'm arguing



Well, that and that since he was acting within the lws of the game such personal insults seem a little unfair.



But since you bring this up... The stewards weren't exactly given much chance to act before the player stepped in. It's not like the guy was running around for five minutes. The video last 1m20s, and the guy is tackled after 40 seconds. This is a non league game without an abundance of stewards, the guy kept running as if he was going to leave the pitch, the stewards are closing him down from several angles, boxing him in, and looking at their proximity they would have had him in less than 20 seconds more. They were taking action, they weren't wheezing as this young kid ran circles around him, they weren't struggling to catch him, they were tactically limiting his options, closing him down when the player just burst through and tackles him.

I don't disagree the guy was wrong for running on the pitch, and I fully expect action to be taken as it should. But if you think the player tackled him out of some sense of civic duty you must be having laugh. He did it because he was angry at he guy for interrupting the game.

There's a lot of conjecture there. The stewards MAY have caught him, but they may not have. And he may have been a martial-arts expert who could have shrugged them off - and indeed hurt the player who intervened. Anyway at least you agree there are two separate issues. But I think the referee was a too-strict twat and you don't, and I think the player did the right thing and you don't. Don't think we're going to get much further with this are we?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Don't know if its been mentioned or not but that twat of a referee is David Spain, a Sussex (and ex Sussex County FL) ref. You couldn't make it up!

 

[NMH]

How did an argument ensue on this thread?

As bizarre as that sending off!

The ref did appear to adopt a dramatic attitude once the players started confronting him - perhaps if the player had just accepted and walked up for a chat, it wouldn't have gone that far?

 

[The Large One]

Red card NOT rescinded.

But the player has escaped a three-match ban.

BBC News - Dorchester Towns mankini red card player escapes ban