Friedel's red card rescinded

[Bricktop]

Have you taken leave of your senses?

You push the ball past me and start running... Where?

You start running at me and into me that is a foul because I was crouched or whatever but stood up?

Massa that cannot be a foul unless I moved into your path. If I remained standing...made no move to block you...but rather you ran into me...you it is, who have coimmitted the infrngement.

Perhaps you have been watching too many 'silly refs' at work? Why do you think it is that players have a right to run into opponents?

That game you are describing...a mussi name 'lick dun' or 'buck-up'?

You are not playing the ball and are impeding my progress to the ball. Foul.

[Paul Marin]

I don't think he was AWFUL, but he didn't have a good game. That's true. I think he'll be up for the manure game and psychologically, the rest of the Villa team will be relieved that he's still there. The youth I feel it for is the understudy who had to come on for his Prem debut to face a Gerrard penalty. There should be a law against that kind of cruelty.

[Karl]

Assassin, I think that he shouldn't have gotten a RED, but to be honest, I can see how the laws of the game are contradictory. From the FIFA LAWS OF THE GAME:

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits
any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the
referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his
own penalty area)

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed
by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of
the ball, provided it is in play.

It goes on to say:

Sending-off Offences
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any
of the following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply
to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent
moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a
free kick or a penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

You tell me. Based on this, I would think it would have been a red card IF you think it was an OBVIOUS goal scoring attempt. Debatable for sure.

When the "Laws" says trip or attempts to trip, it refers to a deliberate action. It certainly does not mean a player falling accidentally over an opponent.

I did not see Friedel trip Torres or attempt to trip Torres. In fact, I saw Friedel try his damnedest to avoid Torres.

Now Torres ran dead straight into Friedel. Based on what I saw, Torres did not mean to cause harm to Friedel. He was consumed with trying to score and became aware of Freidel too late and his momentum prevented him from missing Friedel. It appeared to me that he tried to avoid Friedel at the split-second he became aware that contact was imminent.

Best decision in my view - Allow play to continue. Neither player committed a deliberate act.

NB: Penalties are not supposed to be awarded for accidental contact. The referee must deem the act to fall within one of or a combination of any of - careless, reckless or using excessive force.

My contention is in *"The spirit of the Law" Friedel did not act "careless, reckless or using excessive force"...he did not in that same "spirit of the Law" trip or attempt to trip Torres.

Torres' momentum took him into Friedel whereon which Torres fell. These things happen! It is a man's game! Let's be real if he had severely hurt Friedel would Brickie still say, PENALTY and RED CARD?

Well...if he truly believes Friedel was at fault...then it must be PENALTY and RED CARD matters not if Friedel was hurt! When players commit infringements whether they are hurt or not it is always (OK! OK! ...most often) evident they were at fault.

*When you are being trained as ref they kill you with "Spirit of the Law"...and the ref's job to "manage the game fairly"..."ensure fair play".

[Paul Marin]

When the "Laws" says trip or attempts to trip, it refers to a deliberate action. It certainly does not mean a player falling accidentally over an opponent.

Karl, I don't think so. I submit that most fouls/infractions including "trips" in the game have ZERO INTENT behind them. Most players are trying to play the ball when they commit infractions. Even if you "accidentally" fall over an opponent and you infringe on that player's ability to make a play, you could be found guilty of a foul.

With regard to Friedel, I think 9 out of 10 people would agree that it was a foul, but one can assume that the FA must have thought that the foul WAS NOT a clear goal scoring opportunity (probably because Reo Coker was right there) hence they rescinded the red card.

[Karl]

Karl, I don't think so. I submit that most fouls/infractions including "trips" in the game have ZERO INTENT behind them. Most players are trying to play the ball when they commit infractions. Even if you "accidentally" fall over an opponent and you infringe on that player's ability to make a play, you could be found guilty of a foul.

With regard to Friedel, I think 9 out of 10 people would agree that it was a foul, but one can assume that the FA must have thought that the foul WAS NOT a clear goal scoring opportunity (probably because Reo Coker was right there) hence they rescinded the red card.

Paul: This is how it goes - There is a consideration for the technical ability of the a *professional player. The ref has to assume that the player knows when he will get the ball and when he cannot. So a late tackle is often not with the intention to hurt...but it falls under being careless or reckless - without due regard for the opponent...(like actions of a drunk driver who crashes)

Now someone bearing down at Asafa Powell's or Usian Bolt's speed with the ball at his feet and focused thereon...when he discovers 'late' that there is an object or someone in his path (unfortunately that someone is sometimes the ref )...(e.g. Torres) try his damndest to ' apply the brakes' and just cannot.

Friedel's job demanded he get down...in fair manner, for the ball. Leaving the ball to roll straight into the goal was not an option. Yup! He could have run away but...????

*The player is assumed by the ref to have the necessary skill to play well. That includes making good judgement on pace of ball and therefore knowing all the time which 'ball' he can safely get to and which he cannot, etc.

The variations in having consistent application of the "Laws" ...managing games...have to do with - i) personality of the ref; ii) the culture surrounding how the game is played in different parts of the world e.g. degree of force allowed; iii) respect for the game shown - i.e. generally how players conduct selves in games when under pressure; iv) fitness and experience of the ref (it is assumed that all ref's knwo the laws 'backwards and forwards' )...

FIFA has been trying for years to have all refs 'act' in similar manner in application of the laws and managing of games...suffice it to say, it is an ongoing work.

[Karl]

You are not playing the ball and are impeding my progress to the ball. Foul.

If you push the ball through my legs and run into me and I did not move...many refs I know give a free-kick. ...but the decision is worng. if you puch the ball through my legs you must find a way around me. Do not get me wrong...if I move to block you...then infringement commited by me.

If I do not move and you run into me....you have commited the infringement. You have no right to expect me to give up my space on the field...just as you should not run into me deliberately when I do not have the ball...you should not deliberately run into me when you bus mi salad! ...by all means push the ball through the player's feet and go around....not through!

We see...too often...refs making wrong calls. If seen often enough you may be tempted to assume it is correct. The old, 'Mi si ref duh dat ebry day, suh hit mus rite!'

[Karl]

Awaiting the ball? Is Friedel even attempting to play the ball? Torres has the ball at his feet and is rounding Friedel.

You just proved my point!

...as to was Friedel even attempting to play the ball?
The man had to take evasive action as Torres was trying to kill him. (Actually I thought Torres at the last moment also took evasive action!)

[Assasin]

that is a judgement call by the ref that could have been or not been a penalty but to give a red card to add to the injury?

[Bricktop]

You just proved my point!

...as to was Friedel even attempting to play the ball?
The man had to take evasive action as Torres was trying to kill him. (Actually I thought Torres at the last moment also took evasive action!)

Yes he took evasive action AFTER realizing Torres would beat him to the ball. If we both are running towards a fifty fifty ball, I beat you to the ball and flick it past you and my momentum carries me into you after I flick it past you then you will be called for a foul and rightly so

[Bricktop]

If I push the ball through your legs and you stand up making no attempt to turn around and get the ball and I run into you that is a clear foul on your part. You were not making an attempt to win the ball and you blocked me from doing so. You cannot block someone from the ball if you aren't making an attempt to retrieve it yourself.

[Paul Marin]

Paul: This is how it goes - There is a consideration for the technical ability of the a *professional player. The ref has to assume that the player knows when he will get the ball and when he cannot. So a late tackle is often not with the intention to hurt...but it falls under being careless or reckless - without due regard for the opponent...(like actions of a drunk driver who crashes)

This point is debatable. There is no such consideration in my 9 year old daughter's league. They get called for the same fouls that the pros do.

Now someone bearing down at Asafa Powell's or Usian Bolt's speed with the ball at his feet and focused thereon...when he discovers 'late' that there is an object or someone in his path (unfortunately that someone is sometimes the ref )...(e.g. Torres) try his damndest to ' apply the brakes' and just cannot.

Actually, I think you could say that Friedel tried to apply the brakes and couldn't. Torres had no intention of slowing down because he won the ball.

The player is assumed by the ref to have the necessary skill to play well. That includes making good judgement on pace of ball and therefore knowing all the time which 'ball' he can safely get to and which he cannot, etc.

I don't think it is a "play well" thing. But I do agree that the ref has to use judgement in determining the player's INTENT. In this case, neither player INTENDED to do harm or intentionally foul the other, but Friedel DID foul him, and the Ref saw that foul to ALSO BE denial of a CLEAR GOAL SCORING opportunity. Nothing more than one man's judgement.

The variations in having consistent application of the "Laws" ...managing games...have to do with - i) personality of the ref; ii) the culture surrounding how the game is played in different parts of the world e.g. degree of force allowed; iii) respect for the game shown - i.e. generally how players conduct selves in games when under pressure; iv) fitness and experience of the ref (it is assumed that all ref's knwo the laws 'backwards and forwards' )...FIFA has been trying for years to have all refs 'act' in similar manner in application of the laws and managing of games...suffice it to say, it is an ongoing work.

Agreed. But I don't think these were a big variable on Sunday. Sorry bredrin. As I see it, it was a foul. When the two players advanced towards the ball, one of them beats the other; Friedel, (even though he tried to roll his shoulder to avoid Torres) impeded the forward's progress and in doing so, fouled him. Whether he took away a "clear" goal scoring opportunity is the only real subject of debate, and I can see that going either way. If he did, then RED CARD. If he didn't then no. I don't think it was a RED CARD offense.

[Mosiah]

Penalty!

Friedel blocked the player. Had it been an outfield player, it would have been a penalty. The same goes for the goalie.

How can it be that Torres was at fault when HE WAS THE ONE WHO PLAYED THE BALL!?!?! The goalie didn't!!!!

Rather simple decision.

[Mosiah]

Karl is now saying that a better call would be for the foul to be against Torres.

MADNESS!!!! He played the stupid ball! Friedel didn't!!!!

[Paul Marin]

I think Karl need to go an check him prescription

[Karl]

Penalty!

Friedel blocked the player. Had it been an outfield player, it would have been a penalty. The same goes for the goalie.

How can it be that Torres was at fault when HE WAS THE ONE WHO PLAYED THE BALL!?!?! The goalie didn't!!!!

Rather simple decision.

Playing the ball makes you victim? massa talk sense?

It is not the matter of whether or not a player plays the ball per se that creates a situation demanding punitive action. It's his other actions - e.g. kicks, attempts to kick (...or commits any of the other penal offenses) or engages in any other action that goes foul of the rules of the game i.e. commits an offense.