Sixth-tier player carded for defending the pitch

[Mikey]

To be fair, you're not one of the team members. So you'd have a score for the audience.

I was under the impression that the audience at English football matches tallied its score in casualties, not goals.

[Lt. Staplic]

No, if you were to jump on to the pitch during a game with your soccer ball and kick it into one of the nets that does not mean a goal would be awarded. However it does mean you are now part of that game, when you entered the pitch play would be stopped and you would need to be taken off the field for play to resume; however the actions of the players, coaches, and fans are still governed by the laws of the game and there fore when the player tackled the streaker he was involved in violent conduct. Now again, all of the referees I know wouldn't have carded him for helping out the security staff; however law 12 still applied and he did violate that law in a manner that demands the red card.

[Mikey]

So, you are saying - in agreement with my point - that what to consider "part of the game" is arbitrary, and completely up to interpretation; in the example above, you agree that the results of my actions wouldn't be part of the game. It would be likewise ridiculous for me - as someone not involved in the game - to be awarded a card for charging onto the field and delivering a vicious tackle. So, I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that this "law 12" demands - rather than allows - the referee to penalize Vickers for his actions.

To correlate that with my point, I never argued that the ref wasn't allowed to do as he did - I merely said (and repeated) that I disagree with his decision to do so.

[Lt. Staplic]

No what I was arguing was against this:

See, I would unhesitatingly interpret those rules to apply to situations within the game,

The fact that the player was part of the game is not arbitrary. He did in fact make himself part of the game when he entered the pitch. The game will not be in play while he is on the field; but he is in fact part of that game now. What is arbitrary is the referees course of action following the incident, which we are in agreement upon.

[Mikey]

It is completely nonsensical to claim that the non-player was part of the game if he is incapable of affecting the game. You state yourself that play would be stopped to remove him from the field; why would he be removed if he were part of the game? The referees are part of the game yet not players - they aren't removed, are they?

[Tsukiyumi]

How about this scenario: a gun-toting lunatic storms the field, and a player tackles him to subdue him.

Would the player still get carded?

[Reliant121]

I think you're mixing legislature with pragmatics. In a practical sense, a slug has no effect on a game thats being played. But, it if it wonders into pitch it is part of the game in the senses it's present. Civilians on a battlefield have no impact on a battle, but they are a part of it. Legally anyway.

[Lt. Staplic]

How about this scenario: a gun-toting lunatic storms the field, and a player tackles him to subdue him.

Would the player still get carded?

It would be within the referee's right to do so, although they would probably have a harder time defending that in front of a FIFA review board then in this case.

The referees are part of the game yet not players - they aren't removed, are they?

that's the because the Referees are supposed to be on the field, and the game is partially defined as that which the referee has control over. That's where there's a difference between the game and play. From the rules point of view this is no different than if a dog ran onto the field during a youth game that I might be refereeing. I would stop play until the dog was removed from the pitch (and the field since most of the places I work dogs aren't allowed) and restart with a drop-ball. If one of the players kicked the dog to slow it down for the owners to grab then I would be within my rights to issue the player a red card for violent conduct. and in that case depending on how hard they had kicked the dog (i.e. nudging it to get it to slow down and find him or laying into the dog like he was shooting for 40 yards out) I may or may not have issued the card.

So the dog (streaker) became part of the game when they entered the pitch. They did affect play to a certain degree - I had to stop play and restart with a drop ball because of their pretense - however they wouldn't be involved in active play or be another player/coach on the field which can participate for one team or another.

[Mikey]

The dog affected play, but it's actions could not possibly affect the game. The dog affected play, but did not itself become part of the game-play.

Arbitrary, like I said.

[Lt. Staplic]

The dog affected play, but it's actions could not possibly affect the game. The dog affected play, but did not itself become part of the game-play.

Arbitrary, like I said.

no, the game extends to everything occurring on the pitch between the start whistle and end whistle by the referee (excluding half time). Play is when the ball is in play. So by entering the pitch the dog became part of the game and affected play.

[Mikey]

Yes, but I think you're missing the distinction I'm making. The dog is "in play" - e.g., if the ball bounces off of the dog and has its trajectory altered, then so be it; the game isn't stopped nor is the ball "reset" to where it would have gone had the dog not been there. The dog is, in essence, part of the field. However, the dog is patently not an actor in the game - if he initiates a shot into team A's goal, team B doesn't get a point.

I think the main thrust of what I'm saying is that the rules allow a red card (or other punishment) for what Vickers did; but since the status of the intruder as an actor in the game is arbitrary, the rules don't require a card for Vickers as they would had he done that to another player.

[Lt. Staplic]

Yes, but I think you're missing the distinction I'm making. The dog is "in play" - e.g., if the ball bounces off of the dog and has its trajectory altered, then so be it; the game isn't stopped nor is the ball "reset" to where it would have gone had the dog not been there. The dog is, in essence, part of the field. However, the dog is patently not an actor in the game - if he initiates a shot into team A's goal, team B doesn't get a point.

I think the main thrust of what I'm saying is that the rules allow a red card (or other punishment) for what Vickers did; but since the status of the intruder as an actor in the game is arbitrary, the rules don't require a card for Vickers as they would had he done that to another player.

Yes, all I was saying is that the arbitrarily of the issuing of the card wasn't dependent on the rules applying arbitrarily, but as a matter of arbitrary implementation.

(also to be fair if play hadn't be stopped and the ball bounced off the dog, then play would have restarted with a drop ball at the spot where the dog was hit. Not really relevant but I though I'd point that out)

[Tsukiyumi]

How about this scenario: a gun-toting lunatic storms the field, and a player tackles him to subdue him.

Would the player still get carded?

It would be within the referee's right to do so...

That was all I needed to know...