Sixth-tier player carded for defending the pitch

[Mikey]

Don't start none, won't be none. Personally, I think Vickers deserves a medal, not a card.

[Deepcrush]

Damn... nice to see the Soccer refs are worthless not just in the world cup.

[Mikey]

Damn... nice to see the Soccer refs are worthless not just in the world cup.

Well, uselessness of the magnitude shown by refs in the Cup needs to be honed by years of practice.

[Lt. Staplic]

To be fair to the referee, he was within the rules.

A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

1. is guilty of serious foul play
2. is guilty of violent conduct
3. spits at an opponent or any other person
4. denies an opponent 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)
5. denies 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
6. uses offensive, insulting or abusive language
7. receives a second caution in the same match

had I been the ref I probably wouldn't have (of course I have no where near the same qualifications as this referee), but it's not like he just carded him without any basis.

[Mikey]

See, I would unhesitatingly interpret those rules to apply to situations within the game, and not to a player reacting to something outside the actual match.

[Lt. Staplic]

Well the Clock never stops and it was on the field of play. The rules can't and don't just apply when the ball is in play or you'd likely have people kicking the ball out of bounds so they could turn around and slug someone.

[Mikey]

It's got nothing to do with the clock running, or the ball being in or out of play. Vickers was responding to a situation completely outside the scope of the game. What makes things worse is that the best-case scenario was that some asshole was interrupting the game; what was possible is that said asshole intended harm to one or more of the players.

[Lt. Staplic]

It's got nothing to do with the clock running, or the ball being in or out of play. Vickers was responding to a situation completely outside the scope of the game. What makes things worse is that the best-case scenario was that some asshole was interrupting the game; what was possible is that said asshole intended harm to one or more of the players.

But it does. Once the Ref blows the first whistle to start the game everything that occurs on the pitch is part of the game. There are no stoppages, and the fact that the streaker entered the field does not remove the fact that the match is still ongoing. Again, I'll say that this is all to do with the opinion of the referee and I would not have issued the red-card for the action; however he does have the support of the laws of the game behind him.

[Mikey]

I see what you're saying, but I firmly believe that because on of the parties to the activity in question was unaffiliated with the game, that removes it from being within the province of the game.

[Lt. Staplic]

That's fine. You can believe that. But as soon as the streaker stepped onto the field he became part of the game according to the laws and proceedures of the game.

[McAvoy]

I think soccer should be like Hockey and let fights become part of the game. Definitely makes it more interesting. Hell, let the players tackle each other...

[Deepcrush]

That's fine. You can believe that. But as soon as the streaker stepped onto the field he became part of the game according to the laws and proceedures of the game.

That's one of the dumbest things I've heard all day... and I watched fox news this morning.

[McAvoy]

That's fine. You can believe that. But as soon as the streaker stepped onto the field he became part of the game according to the laws and proceedures of the game.

That's one of the dumbest things I've heard all day... and I watched fox news this morning.

[Mikey]

That's fine. You can believe that. But as soon as the streaker stepped onto the field he became part of the game according to the laws and proceedures of the game.

No, you're completely missing the point. The fact of the outsider being an outsider means that the decision to follow the card rules was up to the ref's interpretation - a point with which you previously said you agreed. My further point is just that IMO, he made the wrong interpretation.

According to the nonsense you just said above, if I jumped onto the pitch with my own soccer ball and kicked it into one of the goals, then that goal should and would count toward the score of the match.

[Reliant121]

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