[Albion] You're the ref: Veltman v Rice

[hans kraay fan club]

Do you HONESTLY believe poor Joel just wanted to take the quick free kick and didn't think he would get ANY of the player standing directly in front of it?

Genuinely?

No. I believe that Joel saw that Rice was making no effort to get away from the ball, so was looking to kick it - aiming for Rice to be seen to be 'failing to retreat' and hoping he'd get a second yellow.

He didn't expect Rice to be MUG enough to get actively involved in the exercise, thus guaranteeing he'd walk.

 

[dazzer6666]

No. I believe that Joel saw that Rice was making no effort to get away from the ball, so was looking to kick it - aiming for Rice to be seen to be 'failing to retreat' and hoping he'd get a second yellow.

He didn't expect Rice to be MUG enough to get actively involved in the exercise, thus guaranteeing he'd walk.

This. Rice would have probably got away with it if he didn’t nudge the ball away. That pushed the ref into giving the second yellow.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

But the incident vs Crawley the ball was live. Our player had every right to kick the ball and some time later he was clattered. In this instance the ball was dead so rice had no business kicking it off the pitch. Those two situations are even less comparable that the Pedro throw in incident to the rice booking.

The incidents themselves are completely different.

I just enjoy that if an opposition player looks to take the ball and wipe out the man with it (and gets it completely wrong by missing the ball altogether) he is a bad character.

If our player looks to take the ball and a player (and gets it wrong because the ball gets kicked away), he's a little cheeky chappy who has played the system.

 

[Berty23]

The incidents themselves are completely different.

I just enjoy that if an opposition player looks to take the ball and wipe out the man with it (and gets it completely wrong by missing the ball altogether) he is a bad character.

If our player looks to take the ball and a player (and gets it wrong because the ball gets kicked away), he's a little cheeky chappy who has played the system.

A little clip in the shin vs studs up above ankle though. No way Veltman injured rice. In fact rice more likely to get injured from his ridiculous dive.

 

[Beanstalk]

No. I believe that Joel saw that Rice was making no effort to get away from the ball, so was looking to kick it - aiming for Rice to be seen to be 'failing to retreat' and hoping he'd get a second yellow.

He didn't expect Rice to be MUG enough to get actively involved in the exercise, thus guaranteeing he'd walk.

This.

Part of the complexity of the wording on this (and why JP wasn't delaying the restart when kicking the ball down the touchline - we have a multiball system) is that Rice has to delay the restart to be delaying the restart of play. If Veltman doesn't make any attempt to restart the play, however genuine, then Rice is not delaying the restart of play and probably gets away with it.

Dale Johnson at ESPN is probably the best voice on reviewing incidents each week and focusses on the incident in his piece yesterday. "And this is the key point, and why it differs from many other situations: Rice intervened when Veltman was in the process of taking the free kick. The opponent was in the process of restarting the match."

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

A little clip in the shin vs studs up above ankle though. No way Veltman injured rice. In fact rice more likely to get injured from his ridiculous dive.

Don't get me wrong. The Crawley tackle is on a different stratosphere to what Veltman did.

I just enjoy that one is violent and the other is our player just being "clever".

To me, kicking someone on purpose is kicking someone on purpose. Thankfully for him, his can be clouded by the situation he did it in which is why he's done it. It's a free hit. Even if the ball was never kicked away by Rice, what was going to be the outcome?

The bit I object to is some people genuinely believe Joel didn't know he would be kicking the player, whether the ball got kicked away or not. He know exactly what he was doing but it's done now and he got away with it thankfully for us.

To me, it's a yellow for both. Both were being silly.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Tell me you've got a podcast to fill and need the clicks and likes to feed the algorithm without telling me, etc etc.

I normally don't mind Micah - I know loads don't - but he's talking absolute nonsense and actually gets himself tied up in his own argument about if it was a free kick or if it wasn't!

And that podcast is f***ing awful

 

[Uh_huh_him]

This. Rice would have probably got away with it if he didn’t nudge the ball away. That pushed the ref into giving the second yellow.

Exactly.

If Rice had let it hit him. then Kavanagh could have had the "common sense" chat with both of them to calm things down.
Rice took that away by committing the offence which has been selected as this season's naughty step.

 

[Professor Plum]

Disagree completely.

Rice is 100% guilty of a yellow card offence. He's admitted so himself. He's kicked the ball away, to prevent the free kick being taken.

Veltman's actions are more subjective - but he is not guilty of any yellow card offence. If the ref considers that he deliberately aimed a kick at Rice, then he has committed a RED card offence. If the ref considers that the contact was purely down to Rice putting his foot illegally where the ball should have been - then he's committed no offence at all.

Sure, no problem. That’s the ‘letter of the law’ perspective which I acknowledged as an option. All that’s left for you to do now is to adhere to those very strict standards as you continue to watch football and apply them to Albion as well.

I’ll stick with my approach which is to follow the rules but always be willing to show some discretion to ensure that within reason, the sport itself doesn’t suffer. Here for instance, it’s clear to me (but not to you, fair enough) that Joel knew 100% what he was doing, and achieved the desired outcome ie Rice reacting in the way he did. Hence my view that either both should be carded (Rice still being sent off) or neither should be but the ref gives them a strong finger wagging pep talk.

Just my view.

 

[Professor Plum]

It's called "Unsporting behaviour". Under this heading, Veltman could potentially have been guilty of "committing in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence" - which would have been a yellow card. The ref could possibly have seen Veltman's actions as "serious foul play" or "violent conduct" - which would have been red card offences. As HKFC has pointed out above, the ref obviously considered that the actions of Rice, in kicking the ball away, meant that Joel ended up kicking through thin air. Having watched it multiple times it seems pretty clear that, if Rice hadn't kicked the ball away, Veltman would have kicked the ball. So definitely NOT "unsporting behaviour". And neither is Rice guilty of "unsporting behaviour" he got his card for "delaying the restart of play". It's remarkable how sensible these decisions seem once you actually read the rules of the game

Veltman rolled the ball towards Rice with the intention IMO of achieving what was achieved. I loved Joel’s MOTD interview when he said he’d have to watch the incident again to make a better judgement! If that isn’t an admission of guilt I don’t know what is!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Sure, no problem. That’s the ‘letter of the law’ perspective which I acknowledged as an option. All that’s left for you to do now is to adhere to those very strict standards as you continue to watch football and apply them to Albion as well.

I’ll stick with my approach which is to follow the rules but always be willing to show some discretion to ensure that within reason, the sport itself doesn’t suffer. Here for instance, it’s clear to me (but not to you, fair enough) that Joel knew 100% what he was doing, and achieved the desired outcome ie Rice reacting in the way he did. Hence my view that either both should be carded (Rice still being sent off) or neither should be but the ref gives them a strong finger wagging pep talk.

Just my view.

You're obviously welcome to your view, but I don't understand your suggested outcome. If you are right (and I'm sure you are) that Joel only tried to take the kick quickly, in an attempt to entice Rice into a card-worthy action, he (Joel Veltman) still hasn't committed any offence, himself. What exactly would you be booking him for?

 

[Professor Plum]

You're obviously welcome to your view, but I don't understand your suggested outcome. If you are right (and I'm sure you are) that Joel only tried to take the kick quickly, in an attempt to entice Rice into a card-worthy action, he (Joel Veltman) still hasn't committed any offence, himself. What exactly would you be booking him for?

Unsporting behaviour (see my post that followed that one).

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you HONESTLY believe poor Joel just wanted to take the quick free kick and didn't think he would get ANY of the player standing directly in front of it?

Genuinely?

The ball rolling is relevant. A professional football knows you don't take a rolling free kick. It's more proof he knew exactly what he was doing so makes the argument of "the ball was there for the quick free kick until Rice kicked it away" redundant as any player would know that free kick wasn't ready to take.

Taking that kick, of a rolling ball, was only done for one reason. He achieved it. I laughed. It helped us. But please PLEASE let's not kid ourselves over what JV was doing.

Yes, I do believe he wanted to take a quick free kick. He's actually been pulled up on multiple occasions for taking free kicks while the ball was still moving.
Think you're wrong on all counts on this one.

 

[METALMICKY]

Both are guilty of what used to be called ‘ungentlemanly conduct’. The ref should either penalise both or neither.

If you’re adamant about following the letter of the law then be consistent and feel annoyed at Albion players committing small transgressions (not taking throws and free kicks from the right place) and larger ones (feigning injury to waste time, diving for penalties etc).

If a ref never showed any discretion, football would be a nightmare and most games would finish with 8 players on each side.

I can tell you that from where I was sitting at the Emirates (a long way from the incident, admittedly), when the ref hoisted that red card, nearly everyone round me thought it was Veltman being sent off.

The long and short of it for me is that the ref should have gone over, told both players to get a grip, and got on with the game without any cards being shown. As Albion benefited from what the ref actually did, part of me wants to applaud the decision but if I’m really honest I think we, and Veltman, were quite fortunate.

Why was Veltman fortunate?

 

[Stato]

Dale Johnson at ESPN is probably the best voice on reviewing incidents each week and focusses on the incident in his piece yesterday. "And this is the key point, and why it differs from many other situations: Rice intervened when Veltman was in the process of taking the free kick. The opponent was in the process of restarting the match."

Spot on. The whataboutism introduced by Arteta and picked up on by Shearer, Lineker, Richards, Souness etc isn't even a comparable situation. You could argue that Joao actions may have resulted in a delayed restart, but there is doubt. The restart was not yet underway and it's not even clear that the ref had blown at the point of his connection.

It's just useless driftwood being snatched at by fools drowning in their own argument. 'Common Sense!' they cry, when what they mean is 'bend the rules when I think it's appropriate, but not when I don't.' Souness quite rightly identifies Veltman as the instigator, but despite being paid to comment on the game, he doesn't know that Veltman's action might be snide, but in my reading and presumably that of the referee, is not an offence. Law 12 defines unsporting behaviour, an offence for which you can be cautioned. There is nothing in there about attempting to get an opponent cautioned: https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

"CAUTIONS FOR UNSPORTING BEHAVIOUR

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:

• attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
• changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
• commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
• handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for a non-deliberate handball offence
• denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick for a non-deliberate handball offence
• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball or for a challenge for the ball
• denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing an offence which was an attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball and the referee awards a penalty kick
• handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
• makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
• plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being given permission to leave
• shows a lack of respect for the game
• initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed (including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper is cautioned if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick
• verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart"

However, "Delaying the restart of play" is specifically listed under the same rule as a cautionable offence.

These ex pros don't think they have to know the rules. They don't need to spend ten minutes reading anything because their successful playing careers have made them experts on every aspect of the game by osmosis. If their view is ever challenged they just have to shout 'You've never played the game' as their trump card and swan off back to the golf club bar where they can all reinforce each other's ignorance.

 

[METALMICKY]

No. I believe that Joel saw that Rice was making no effort to get away from the ball, so was looking to kick it - aiming for Rice to be seen to be 'failing to retreat' and hoping he'd get a second yellow.

He didn't expect Rice to be MUG enough to get actively involved in the exercise, thus guaranteeing he'd walk.

Spot on. It's truly amazing how many Arsenal fans don't get that all us Albion fans are admitting what Veltman was trying to do.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Yes, I do believe he wanted to take a quick free kick. He's actually been pulled up on multiple occasions for taking free kicks while the ball was still moving.
Think you're wrong on all counts on this one.

Who exactly was he trying to knock the quick free kick to if it was a genuine attempt.....

There's 11 Brighton players in our own half and he is looking to smack it down the pitch. So you tell me why he is wanting to take the quick free kick.

PLEASE can we be sensible.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sure he's a lovely guy but MY GOD he is stupid if he thinks he can take a quick free kick......of a rolling ball......with a man 1 yard away......having been pulled up multiple times before.....and he STILL hasn't learnt that's not allowed.

Who exactly was he trying to knock the quick free kick to if it was a genuine attempt.....

There's 11 Brighton players in our own half and he is looking to smack it down the pitch. So you tell me why he is wanting to take the quick free kick.

PLEASE can we be sensible.

I'm being sensible. Veltman explicitly said in the post-match interview that he was trying to pass it to Welbeck -- who is free in that picture you've helpfully shared.
It's up to Rice not to impede the quick free kick.
It's up to Rice not to kick the ball away.
Whatever happens after that is immaterial, because those two things are what the ref has to judge the incident by.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Spot on. The whataboutism introduced by Arteta and picked up on by Shearer, Lineker, Richards, Souness etc isn't even a comparable situation. You could argue that Joao actions may have resulted in a delayed restart, but there is doubt. The restart was not yet underway and it's not even clear that the ref had blown at the point of his connection.

It's just useless driftwood being snatched at by fools drowning in their own argument. 'Common Sense!' they cry, when what they mean is 'bend the rules when I think it's appropriate, but not when I don't.' Souness quite rightly identifies Veltman as the instigator, but despite being paid to comment on the game, he doesn't know that Veltman's action might be snide, but in my reading and presumably that of the referee, is not an offence. Law 12 defines unsporting behaviour, an offence for which you can be cautioned. There is nothing in there about attempting to get an opponent cautioned: https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

"CAUTIONS FOR UNSPORTING BEHAVIOUR

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:

• attempts to deceive the referee e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
• changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
• commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
• handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for a non-deliberate handball offence
• denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick for a non-deliberate handball offence
• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball or for a challenge for the ball
• denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing an offence which was an attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball and the referee awards a penalty kick
• handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
• makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
• plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being given permission to leave
• shows a lack of respect for the game
• initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed (including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper is cautioned if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick
• verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart"

However, "Delaying the restart of play" is specifically listed under the same rule as a cautionable offence.

These ex pros don't think they have to know the rules. They don't need to spend ten minutes reading anything because their successful playing careers have made them experts on every aspect of the game by osmosis. If their view is ever challenged they just have to shout 'You've never played the game' as their trump card and swan off back to the golf club bar where they can all reinforce each other's ignorance.

(BTW I'm agreeing with you here / backing up your point and then addressing others on this thread)

As Dermot Gallagher correctly points out, Rice flicks the ball out of play. Therefore he has committed the bookable offence of delaying the restart of play. The ball is now dead.

Veltman hasn't done anything LEGALLY wrong. He can't take the kick with a rolling ball because Rice knocks it dead. Anyone who knows the laws of the game would have come to the same conclusion as the ref.

What he was intending was almost certainly to take the kick quickly and hit Rice, who is right next to him, in the hope a card is shown. That kick would have been with a rolling ball and from the wrong spot. But he can't execute it. Rice's intervention gets him sent off correctly, whereas letting Veltman get on with it probably would have just reset the kick.

TL;DR - legally the outcome was entirely correct. You can't caution Veltman for thinking something.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Veltman explicitly said in the post-match interview that he was trying to pass it to Welbeck -

Christ. Of course he was. Sure, Welbeck wasn't anywhere near where he was looking to play it, wasn't on his toes and had 2 Arsenal centre backs near him. Sure, he's looking down the line where there's no Brighton players. Sure he's shaping to kick it down the line. But he said it was for Welbeck

I can't believe people are believing this but I'll leave it there otherwise I'll lose my sanity.