There are two sending off offenses from Law 12 that this could fall under: violent conduct and offensive, insulting, abusive language/gestures. In the LOTG, it specifies that a player is guilty of violent conduct if "he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official, or any other person". Referring to a dog as a person is a stretch, so VC is out. However, there is no such stipulation for OFFINABUS, as this has more of a cultural element. Personally, I think it's telling that all the players seem to accept this decision without complaint, and I agree with the send off.
I would think that should you try to justify the send off you would have to go to law 12 and take a look at the bullet below
•using offensive, insulting or ABUSIVE language and/or gestures.
This act was clearly abusive, while 99% of the time will occur against another human (player, coach, spectator, match official, etc.) there are these rare items that make up that 1%. The law does not say that the abusive act must be towards a person so I feel the referee is within his power here to send off.
Looking at what happened befoer the incident however, he completed his substitution then came back on the pitch to get the dog. Couldn't you issued him the second caution for entering the field without permission. More ticky tacky of a way to handle the situation but at least that offense is well defined within the laws of the game. (Assuming second caution as it appears he was being cautioned as he was coming off as seen on other videos on youtube that started a tab earlier in the sequence of events)
“Advice to Referees” section 12.34: “It is violent conduct when a player (or substitute) is guilty of aggression towards an opponent … or towards any other person (a teammate, the referee, an assistant referee, a spectator, etc.). The ball can be in or out of play...” Could the interpretation be that the player was “throwing the dog at the spectators”? Therefore a violent action was taken against a person/spectator! Notice the spectators standing directly behind the fence where the dog was thrown. Were these spectators harassing the Bella Vista (visitors) team and Mr. Jimenez seized the opportunity to retaliate against the San Juan (home) fans?
Having said that, there is also the possibility that the red card was issued because of something that occurred or was said during the subsequent altercation out of sight or earshot of the cameras and mike.
There are two sending off offenses from Law 12 that this could fall under: violent conduct and offensive, insulting, abusive language/gestures. In the LOTG, it specifies that a player is guilty of violent conduct if "he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official, or any other person". Referring to a dog as a person is a stretch, so VC is out. However, there is no such stipulation for OFFINABUS, as this has more of a cultural element. Personally, I think it's telling that all the players seem to accept this decision without complaint, and I agree with the send off.
ReplyDeleteI would think that should you try to justify the send off you would have to go to law 12 and take a look at the bullet below
ReplyDelete•using offensive, insulting or ABUSIVE language and/or gestures.
This act was clearly abusive, while 99% of the time will occur against another human (player, coach, spectator, match official, etc.) there are these rare items that make up that 1%. The law does not say that the abusive act must be towards a person so I feel the referee is within his power here to send off.
Looking at what happened befoer the incident however, he completed his substitution then came back on the pitch to get the dog. Couldn't you issued him the second caution for entering the field without permission. More ticky tacky of a way to handle the situation but at least that offense is well defined within the laws of the game. (Assuming second caution as it appears he was being cautioned as he was coming off as seen on other videos on youtube that started a tab earlier in the sequence of events)
“Advice to Referees” section 12.34: “It is violent conduct when a player (or substitute) is guilty of aggression towards an opponent … or towards any other person (a teammate, the referee, an assistant referee, a spectator, etc.). The ball can be in or out of play...”
ReplyDeleteCould the interpretation be that the player was “throwing the dog at the spectators”? Therefore a violent action was taken against a person/spectator! Notice the spectators standing directly behind the fence where the dog was thrown.
Were these spectators harassing the Bella Vista (visitors) team and Mr. Jimenez seized the opportunity to retaliate against the San Juan (home) fans?
Having said that, there is also the possibility that the red card was issued because of something that occurred or was said during the subsequent altercation out of sight or earshot of the cameras and mike.
Elie.
Love the answers so far all ...
ReplyDeleteI will share my opinion in a couple of days when all have had the chance to chime in.
PK