Just interested in a comment from some refs really on a point that always bugs me.
Watching EG v Shoreham yesterday there was an incident (right in front of me) when an EG forward layed the ball off and then tried to get beyond the Shoreham defender to get it back. The Shoreham defender was not the last man but knew he was in trouble and grabbed the forwards' shirt/arm and anything else he could get hold of to prevent him. The EG player lashed out (looked like he threw a punch) at the defender in frustration. As the defender went down he kicked out at the EG player who responded by kicking him back badly in the head.
I'm not convinced any of the officials saw the whole incident as it was away from the ball but after a bit of consultation among all 3 they sent the EG player off - perhaps convinced he must have done something by the fact the Shoreham player was in obvious pain on the ground.
My point here is that the red card to the EG player was absolutey deserved. His reaction was about as obvious a case of violent conduct you will see and he could have seriously hurt the Shoreham guy. What was surprising though was that no action whatsoever was taken against the Shoreham player - and the game was restarted, I think, with a Shoreham free-kick. This suggests to me that the officials didn't really see what happened.
I have a couple of points for referees to perhaps comment on.
- If the first foul was committed by the Shoreham player. Regardless of what the EG player then did, should it not have re-started with an EG free kick?
- Why is it so common that the player who commits the first foul - in this case blatently pulling the forward back , always seems to get off lightly compared to the player who retaliates. The Shoreham player should have got at least a yellow card and arguably a red as he also kicked out , even if what the EG player did was worse. It just frustrates me that the instigator in these type of incidents always seems to get a lesser punishment than the 'wronged' player who then retaliates.