The bare facts of violent conduct

You probably saw on the television news or in your national paper, the incident at a non-league game, when a male streaker rushed onto the field and tried to head a goal. One of the attacking side chased after him and tried to bring him down. 

As the streaker made his way hastily off the field, the referee called the player to him and sent him off. The player's club were incensed by the sending off, apart from anything else because he was a star player and they felt that had he remained on the field they may have won the cup tie. 

A great deal was made of the fact that the sent-off player was a policeman, and it was suggested that he was trying to arrest the streaker. 

From the referee's point of view I don't think he could take that into consideration. I've refereed police teams many times and they are no angels and always stretched my control to the limit. 

The newspapers were also very critical of the referee's decision. I don't have any sympathy with streakers at sporting events, they are just an unnecessary distraction, even more so this one who actually interfered with play. But was the referee wrong to show the player who attacked him, the red card?

The newspapers were incorrect on a couple of counts I feel. They said that the player tried to tackle the streaker and from that you might suppose that it was a rugby type tackle. What the television camera showed however, was that whatever his intention, the player actually kicked the streaker. He was a little slow and the streaker escaped. Secondly the newspapers said the referee sent the
player off for 'bringing the game into disrepute'. 

There are seven offences for which a referee can send off a player, but bringing the game into disrepute is not
one of them. It just doesn't exist. Obviously I haven't seen the referee's report but what it would have stated as the offence, was 'violent conduct'. 

Many people are not clear what the difference is between 'serious foul play' and 'violent conduct' and this incident illustrates it quite clearly.

Serious foul play can only be committed when there is a challenge for the ball and the ball is in play, and only against an opponent. Violent conduct can take
place at any time and against anyone and I do mean anyone. It can be against an opponent. Take the case of a player beaten in a tackle and the ball goes out of
play. The player unhappy with the opponent's tackle, decides to extract his own punishment by kicking or perhaps striking the opponent. It is not a challenge for
the ball which is out of play anyway, so this is not serious foul play but violent conduct. 

Earlier this season I sent off two players of the same team, for fighting one another. Serious foul play can only be against an opponent so that was violent conduct.

Royals supporters will no doubt remember an incident a few years ago, in a match at the Madejski Stadium against Bristol City. A foul was given against a City player Gerard Lavin in front of the East Stand. The Reading supporters in that area so incensed the Bristol player with their jeering that he picked up the ball and kicked it with considerable force into the stand, injuring a
spectator. The referee had no hesitation about sending him off for violent conduct. 

Is there any difference between that incident and the one with the streaker? The policemen/player was obviously incensed about the actions of the streaker when he chased after him. 

Different referees may have acted differently, but if
the referee at the game did not see his intervention as a tackle but as a kick at the streaker, surely that was violent conduct?

Dick Sawdon Smith

 

Back To Contents

 

© R Sawdon Smith 2004