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.