Welcome to this week's edition of Don't Fight The Laws, in which I combine my years of being a referee with my years of being a smartass to provide my answers to your questions about the Laws of the Game, controversial decisions and other odds and ends relating to referees and what they do.
Got a question? Send it over to canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com. But for this week, we have the following...
(incoherent swearing) -- Jamie Doyle, Toronto
Yeah, my Arsenal-loving colleague had a little trouble articulating his question, but I interpreted it as "Please, good sir, do inform me as to the legitimacy of Robin van Persie's sending-off against Barcelona on Tuesday, won't you?"
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
Interestingly, I was unable to catch the first half of the match, and have no idea what RVP's first yellow card was for (though I hear he went ballistic over something-or-other). But that, ultimately, is irrelevant. You have to remember, the Laws of the Game are cool, disinterested creatures, unbeholden to human ideals of "context", "compassion" or "the capability to hear a blown whistle".
The second yellow to van Persie was, certainly, for unsporting behaviour -- and we've all seen cautions given for players kicking the ball away when their team is ahead (which Arsenal was at the time). Referee Massimo Busacca applied the letter of the law, irrespective of RVP's contention that the crowd noise prevented him from hearing the whistle.
Those unhappy with the call have been howling "where's the common sense? You can't send a guy off for that!" I'd agree. But RVP wasn't sent off for that. He was shown a yellow card. If it had been his first, the game would have carried on, and no one would have cared. But it was his second, and all of a sudden, we need a royal inquiry into Champions League officiating.
The purpose of a first yellow card is to signal to a player that they're on thin ice. Sure, common sense should factor into a referee's decision-making at all times. But if the referee allows a player who's on one yellow to get away with more than they'd normally be able to get away with -- for fear of sending them off -- then it defeats the purpose of cautioning them in the first place.
I won't dispute that it was an extraordinarily unfortunate situation for Arsenal, and it's entirely possible RVP really didn't hear the first whistle. But as Busacca showed at the World Cup -- when he controversially sent off South African goalkeeper Itumeleng Khune -- he's a stickler for the laws as written. In this case, harsh as it may have seemed, his decision against van Persie was justifiable under the Laws of the Game.
If a player tackles a streaker, is it really a red card? -- Fred Jean-Francois, Montreal
Frankly, for tackling such an annoyingly useless streaker in such an entertaining fashion, I think Dorchester City's Ashley Vickers deserves a medal, rather than an early exit from the match.
But the Laws of the Game are clear. A player is to be sent off for violent conduct "if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person." Also worth noting is that "violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not."
"Serious foul play" (also a sending-off offence) may only be committed against an opponent, when the ball is in play. But if a player punches an opponent, punches a teammate, or goes into the stands to accost supporters with a pitchfork, that's violent conduct, and a red card.
As you can see, Vickers' plight is not unprecedented:
We've also got this classic moment in Magpies history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFLeTm46CqQ
Snoods! -- Daniel Squizzato, Toronto
Great question, Squizz. And by question, I mean exclamation. Surely you're inquiring about FIFA's recent decision to ban the silly-looking neck warmers.
From a sartorial standpoint, I couldn't give a toss. From a supporter's standpoint, I'm as peeved as anyone that the world governing body wastes its time clamping down on this sort of thing whilst goal-line technology, diving, the full professionalization of match officials and other pressing issues remain unresolved.
But from a referee's standpoint, here's what the Laws have for us: "A player may use equipment other than the basic equipment provided that its sole purpose is to protect him physically and it poses no danger to him or any other player."
One could argue that a snood's purpose is to protect the player from the weather. But Sepp Blatter's contention is that it could inadvertently choke a player -- and choking is, indeed, a safety hazard. While players like Samir Nasri seem to have snoods that fit properly, some of the looser-fitting varieties definitely open the door to danger:
Oh, and FIFA, if you're cracking down on silly things worn by Mario Balotelli, maybe you could also issue a special edict against this... thing:
That's it for this week. Send your questions to canadiansoccerguys@gmail.com, and your query may turn up in the next edition of Don't Fight The Laws.