Ajax -AZ abandoned through a hooligan

[Gazza_8 233]

I agree Re the manager but disagree Re the keeper. He defended himself, IMO.

 

Mate, the 1st kick could be passed off as self defence but the 2nd? A definate assault charge right there.

 

Like I keep saying, the hooligan was ALREADY on the deck and showed no sign of attempting to get to his feet.

[Gazza_8 233]

And you may say he wasnt defending himself. That is your prerogative - but he is in his workplace and certainly not expecting what happened, instinct will have him do what he did.

 

Here's another example.

 

I'm at work and for whatever reason, assaulted. As the attacker hits me he loses his balance and falls to the ground. Am I right to get my baton him and baton him once or even twice?

 

I could strike him once and get away with it as long as I can back up my reason for doing so. If I strike him again I could easily get done with assault.

 

There is a difference in that I expect people to attempt to assault me while at work (still doesn't make it acceptable) where a GK doesn't but at the end of the day it's the same thing.

[Gazza_8 233]

Craig, what I heard on 5live is that it's violent conduct against anyone on the field of play including a pitch invader. The ref has applied the letter of the law here. It's retaliation in the same way if a player had kicked the keeper and he then did that to his opponent.

 

The ref did nothing wrong but he's a ref, so people will just blame him anyway. It's the same for the polis.

[craig 5,199]

The ref did nothing wrong but he's a ref, so people will just blame him anyway. It's the same for the polis.

 

I dont see (m)any on here blaming the ref. Just that it seemed a strange decision. Doesnt mean anyone is blaming him. I do see where you are coming from though.

 

Re the Police, it is natural for people to do that. I am not one of them. I think you guys have a thankless task, especially with how modern society seems to have become more anti-social than I ever recall.

 

Still glad you left the fire service though ?

[craig 5,199]

Here's another example.

 

I'm at work and for whatever reason, assaulted. As the attacker hits me he loses his balance and falls to the ground. Am I right to get my baton him and baton him once or even twice?

 

I could strike him once and get away with it as long as I can back up my reason for doing so. If I strike him again I could easily get done with assault.

 

There is a difference in that I expect people to attempt to assault me while at work (still doesn't make it acceptable) where a GK doesn't but at the end of the day it's the same thing.

 

I think this comes down to the difference between what is "legal" (for lack of a better word) and what is "logical".

 

I completely understand what you are saying, I really do. And legally you would probably be charged for excessive force. However, I think if someone attacks you then you should be able to defend yourself to ensure your safety. If a guy attacks you, you have NO IDEA what he is carrying or the danger he poses. Therefore I would say you should be within your rights (from a logical, possibly not legal) to whack him with your baton, regardless of him falling to the ground. At this point I would contend his falling to the ground doesnt change anything because he could get back up and re-engage his attack. If he is carrying a blade then your personal safety is still under threat so you are endangering yourself by NOT hitting him. Again, personally (not legally) I would have no issue if you hit him a second time to make damned sure he isnt getting back up to attack you again.

 

As I say, you are looking at this as a law enforcer so looking at the legal position, which is completely accurate. I am looking at it from a more emotive, personal perspective that you should secure your own safety, even if that means hitting him twice when down to ensure he isnt getting back up (not to the extent of a Rodney King type beating but enough to ensure he doesnt want to continue his attack).

 

I guess part of where I am coming from is because when I was younger if you did anything wrong as a kid in the street the local bobby would give you a cuff round the ear for being stupid and you would not only accept it but appreciate that he didnt tell your folks. These days if the police give somebody a cuff round the ear it is more likely the policeman would be charged for assault and the original wrongdoing forgotten.

 

I know what you are saying Gav, and legally you know better than me, so are right. But the logic of it to me says you should give him a whack to ensure your own safety.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Again, you obviously know better than me BH, but is that player entering the field of play bound by those rules (violent conduct) even when the person he commits said conduct against is nothing to do with being bound by the same rules ?

 

YES

 

Genuinely interested in this. Because, it would seem, going by that logic, the fan could kick seven shades of shit out of the keeper and even if the keeper throws one single, solitary punch (even AFTER being beaten) then he gets red carded for violent conduct ??

 

CORRECT

 

I just dont see the logic in that. So on the 28th, we are winning 1-0..... one of their fans charges the pitch and beats the shit out of McGregor, McGregor hits him in self defence, but McGregor gets sent off ? And we have to finish the game with 10 men due to the actions of someone bound by none of the aforementioned rules ?

 

CORRECT AGAIN. The player is bound by the Laws of the Game, the fan is bound by the law of the land.

 

Sorry, but in that type of instance, I think the rules are seriously flawed.

 

Sorry, don't agree (see juffery's #77).

 

Can I just clarify one point I made last night. I think that the Dutch FA are wrong to rescind the red card but the punishment for the offence is another matter. Had they upheld the red card, they may well have taken account of the extenuating circumstances in deciding the punishment.

 

If I can put your point the other way around. How many times would the goalie have to kick the man lying on the ground before it would become violent conduct in your view?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Have to say Craig after reading through all the posts I'm with you on this one, if it was me you put him down and keep him down until somebody helps or he just isn't getting back up.

 

The rules or law go out the window when it comes to personal safety.

 

He could have held him down without kicking him twice, he was about twice the size of the fan; and the stewards/police would have done the rest.

[pete 2,499]

He could have held him down without kicking him twice, he was about twice the size of the fan; and the stewards/police would have done the rest.

 

Disagree totally with you on this one Brahim. Firstly the size of a person has totally nothing to do with body strength. Secondly if the keeper put his body in range of the attacker then he would be putting himself in far more danger than keeping him on the ground with the threat of a kick.

I think the Dutch FA got this totally correct, the red card as in this case may be part of the laws of the game but open to interpretation. Violent conduct from a player, is in my eyes, as in the case of Eric Cantona's famous karate kick, that is certainly a deserved red card. This is a totally different kettle of fish as a supporter entered the field of play and attacked the player. If the Ref had just kept a cool head then he could have waited until the stewards took the hooligan away and the game could have continued as before the attack. Unfortunately in this case he chose to throw oil on the fire and red card the keeper. This decision could actually have caused riots on the terraces if it was an old firm game or other highly inflammable derby.

 

I also think the Dutch Lawyer that I mentioned in another post had it spot on. I very much doubt even in Scotland if there would be a prosecutor who would take the keeper to court. (Unless it was a Rangers player of course.)

Is there talk of premeditation? The hooligan instigated the situation. You are allowed to use minimal force to detain someone and I doubt if a prosecutor would go to court and try to plea that those two reasonably soft kicks were over the top.

Gav said that the hooligan didn't try to stand up but the threatening position of the keeper never gave him a chance to stand up.

If the keeper had let him get to his feet then he would have been in far more danger as now was the case.

[pete 2,499]

Thoroughly enjoyed this thread and I think that the rule will be looked at and reshaped as to what is violent conduct against a supporter.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Disagree totally with you on this one Brahim. Firstly the size of a person has totally nothing to do with body strength. Secondly if the keeper put his body in range of the attacker then he would be putting himself in far more danger than keeping him on the ground with the threat of a kick.

 

I think the Dutch FA got this totally correct, the red card as in this case may be part of the laws of the game but open to interpretation. Violent conduct from a player, is in my eyes, as in the case of Eric Cantona's famous karate kick, that is certainly a deserved red card. This is a totally different kettle of fish as a supporter entered the field of play and attacked the player. If the Ref had just kept a cool head then he could have waited until the stewards took the hooligan away and the game could have continued as before the attack. Unfortunately in this case he chose to throw oil on the fire and red card the keeper. This decision could actually have caused riots on the terraces if it was an old firm game or other highly inflammable derby.

 

Gav said that the hooligan didn't try to stand up but the threatening position of the keeper never gave him a chance to stand up.

 

If the keeper had let him get to his feet then he would have been in far more danger as now was the case.

I feel you contradict yourself a little by saying the threatening position of the keeper never gave him a chance to stand up and at the same time if the keeper put his body in range of the attacker then he would be putting himself in far more danger than keeping him on the ground with the threat of a kick. If the goalkeeper's threatening position was enough to prevent the spectator standing up, and in my opinion he realised right away that he had bitten off more than he could chew, then why did the keeper need to kick him twice or even once for that matter?

 

I also don't think you answered my earlier question about how many kicks would you deem, not excessive?

 

The Laws of the Game state, inter alia: A player is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person. As they stand at present the laws don't further distinguish between a spectator in a passive role and one who has entered the field of play or attacks a player. What a about a spectator who attacks a match official or "other person"?

 

So I agree that it IS a matter of interpretation, of the phrase excessive force. I think you would agree that one punch, sometimes little more than a slap is regarded as excessive force, so what about two kicks when a man is lying on the ground, whether that is to keep him down when you appear to say that even the threat of that was enough to do that, or just because the keeper has lost the plot, which is my view.

 

You are right to point out that the Laws may well be changed in future (perhaps to define "excessive force") but I don't think they could distinguish between excessive force used against a player and excessive force used against any other person. However, as they stand right now, I still believe that the referee made the correct decision. If he had not sent the goalkeeper off, thus condoning the two kicks after the first kick/trip that brought the spectator down (which I agree was not excessive force) what kind of signal would that have sent to the goalkeeper or the rest of the players.

 

Put in a nutshell, my opinion is that the two kicks whilst the spectator was on the ground, constitute excessive force within the meaning of the Laws, therefore the keeper was guilty of violent conduct and was rightly sent off.

 

Lastly the Laws also remind referees that "violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intevention." I think that's exactly what the referee did. I think it is inconceivable that the referee could have allowed the goalkeeper's actions and not taken action against him.

 

However, I also accept that that is my view as a former refreee and you are coming at it from a different angle.