Question regarding red cards

[pernunz]

This situation hasn't yet come up when I've been playing, and I'm just wondering how it is handled.

It is quite common in the amateur league for a player to play in 2 consecutive games, be it in the C/B grades, or even A/B grades. If a player gets shown a red card in the first game (for whatever reason), is he allowed to play the second game?

Logic would suggest that he is allowed to play the second game, but then would be suspended for games the next week, however, if the same referee is doing both games, can he refuse to start the game because of a particular player? Say, for example, if the first player got sent off for violent conduct, or assaulting the referee/a linesman.

[Paleon Patros Germanos]

My understanding is if you get sent off in the Reserves, you cant play in the seniors.

[BANYA]

Short Answer - NO -

[ontheblackburner]

My understanding is if you get sent off in the Reserves, you cant play in the seniors.

Correct.

But here's an interesting situation for us all to ponder:

If a player gets a red card in the Bs/As and the next week that team has a bye or a cup round (and they are out) but their Cs have a league fixture - does that red card count for the Cs game, meaning that player would be available for the Bs/As next league match?

If not, does that mean a player getting sent off in As/Bs one week can play Cs the week after and a player getting sent off in Cs can play Bs/As...

[pernunz]

We had a player sent off (2 yellows) in a C grade game the week before the Cup round. He was eliigble for the Cup round, but not eligible for the league game two weeks later.

[Plympton Doggie]

We had a scenario where 2 players were red carded in the reserves and then kitted up for As. The league ref allowed them to play as his understanding was if they sat out the A grade game from being red carded does that game now count as the "red card game" and he lines up as per normal next sunday?

[Delete Your Account]

http://www.saasl.com.au/applications/Do ... _2009_.pdf

Point 14 - Interchangability of players

When a club is promoting more than one team in the League championship
competition, that club (provided it be a full member and not a designated “thirds” or
“veterans” club) may be permitted to interchange its players from one team to
another unless those players be under suspension, or have been sent off on the same
day.

[Cruie]

Correct interpretation.

It's why they "try" to have numbered matchdays ... So a Red card issued on Matchday 4 means:

A player can't play again on that "matchday" (in any standard of game).

But games played on that "matchday" do not count as a player's banned game.

They are - in effect - banned for two matchdays ... the matchday on which they received the card, and the following match day (then plus any additional ban)

... Technically, Matchdays include both the Saturday and Sunday games (should any team compete in both Saturday and Sunday competitions ... and look to get around it that way ;))

(At least, that was my understanding when - yonks ago - I spoke with Bill about it)

[Knight15]

If you get sent off, the referee is supposed to take your card, you can't then play the same day, as you won't have a card and be 'official'

[God is an Englishman]

Happened a few years ago, I was sent off and named on the bench for the A's.

We were not sure at the time whether I could play or not so didn't take the risk and I didn't come on. It was questioned with the league and we were informed that had I came on then we would have lost the game for playing an ineligible player.

Speak to your previous secretary who was involved with this situation for clarification.

[pernunz]

I trust you on this matter, GIAE.

It makes sense, as the referee who sends the player off should take the player card for suspension purposes.

[God is an Englishman]

I trust you on this matter, GIAE.

It makes sense, as the referee who sends the player off should take the player card for suspension purposes.

In this case he didn't because it was the same referee for both games. As such he dealt with all matters after the 2nd game was completed.

[tibbaw]

We had a situation on the weekend where a first team player invaded the pitch during the reserves fixture to get involved in a fight, he was subsequently ejected from the grounds, yet played in the first team game that followed. I would have thought if he was ejected he would be unable to play in the first team fixture, especially given he was reported for something as bad as that. However, the referee seemed to consider them separate games and that the findings of the report/investigation would determine his punishment.

[pernunz]

We had a situation on the weekend where a first team player invaded the pitch during the reserves fixture to get involved in a fight, he was subsequently ejected from the grounds, yet played in the first team game that followed. I would have thought if he was ejected he would be unable to play in the first team fixture, especially given he was reported for something as bad as that. However, the referee seemed to consider them separate games and that the findings of the report/investigation would determine his punishment.

That is particularly tricky. I think he would be eligible to play. There is nothing the referee can do to stop the club fielding a player that has not been suspended by the league, if he is registered and has his player card.

[God is an Englishman]

We had a situation on the weekend where a first team player invaded the pitch during the reserves fixture to get involved in a fight, he was subsequently ejected from the grounds, yet played in the first team game that followed. I would have thought if he was ejected he would be unable to play in the first team fixture, especially given he was reported for something as bad as that. However, the referee seemed to consider them separate games and that the findings of the report/investigation would determine his punishment.

As he was not a player or named substitute then he was not sent off. That referee may have asked him to leave the area but he was not "sent off". As such the next referee is within his right to allow him to play.

Was it a club ref that "sent him off"? Common sense would say that he shouldn't play to stop further incidents where other players could look for retribution. Why did your club allow him to play after committing such an offence?

[Chade]

We had a situation on the weekend where a first team player invaded the pitch during the reserves fixture to get involved in a fight, he was subsequently ejected from the grounds, yet played in the first team game that followed. I would have thought if he was ejected he would be unable to play in the first team fixture, especially given he was reported for something as bad as that. However, the referee seemed to consider them separate games and that the findings of the report/investigation would determine his punishment.

That is particularly tricky. I think he would be eligible to play. There is nothing the referee can do to stop the club fielding a player that has not been suspended by the league, if he is registered and has his player card.

If he's ejected from the ground (on reasonable terms), he shouldn't have been able to play... I don't think you even have to refer to the referee (for the A's) for that...?

[God is an Englishman]

If he's ejected from the ground (on reasonable terms), he shouldn't have been able to play... I don't think you even have to refer to the referee (for the A's) for that...?

I actualyl agree with you but I'll play devils advocate.

Who decides the legitimate grounds though?

The club ref could send off a player from the A grade just because he knows he's there best player.

[tibbaw]

It was a club referee that ejected him from the grounds and he told the first team referee about the incident and that he was not permitted to play on our grounds. The referee refused to have any involvement in it basically. I agree common sense would suggest that there should be no way that he be allowed to play given what had just taken place and this was the general consensus, but if the referee allows him to play then we can't physically prevent him from playing. I understand there may have been a bit of a grey area considering it was a home referee, but that type of behaviour is disgusting and I'm sure he will be dealt with harshly. I just wasn't sure of the ruling in this situation and to me it seemed ridiculous that this guy was allowed to play.

[Chade]

Yeah, definitely ridiculous.

If he's ejected from the ground (on reasonable terms), he shouldn't have been able to play... I don't think you even have to refer to the referee (for the A's) for that...?

I actualyl agree with you but I'll play devils advocate.

Who decides the legitimate grounds though?

The club ref could send off a player from the A grade just because he knows he's there best player.

From memory: the referee from the first ground still has the authority to eject from the ground completely.

You could try to do that; the association would/should come down on you like a tonne of bricks...

[God is an Englishman]

Yeah, definitely ridiculous.

If he's ejected from the ground (on reasonable terms), he shouldn't have been able to play... I don't think you even have to refer to the referee (for the A's) for that...?

I actualyl agree with you but I'll play devils advocate.

Who decides the legitimate grounds though?

The club ref could send off a player from the A grade just because he knows he's there best player.

From memory: the referee from the first ground still has the authority to eject from the ground completely.

You could try to do that; the association would/should come down on you like a tonne of bricks...

They would if you got caught, for instance in this situation how would the association know if the player really did come onto the pitch and hit someone.

I don't believe the first ref has any jurisdiction whatsover at the completion of his game over players in the second game.

[Chade]

From memory: the referee from the first ground still has the authority to eject from the ground completely.

You could try to do that; the association would/should come down on you like a tonne of bricks...

They would if you got caught, for instance in this situation how would the association know if the player really did come onto the pitch and hit someone.

I don't believe the first ref has any jurisdiction whatsover at the completion of his game over players in the second game.

Referee reports; eye-witnesses. You know, the normal set of evidence.

Referees have jurisdiction for the entire day, at the field of play. If you're having a beer after the game at the field, and you call the ref a cheating f*cking c*nt, he can legitimately give you a red card for foul and abusive language.

[God is an Englishman]

From memory: the referee from the first ground still has the authority to eject from the ground completely.

You could try to do that; the association would/should come down on you like a tonne of bricks...

They would if you got caught, for instance in this situation how would the association know if the player really did come onto the pitch and hit someone.

I don't believe the first ref has any jurisdiction whatsover at the completion of his game over players in the second game.

Referee reports; eye-witnesses. You know, the normal set of evidence.

Referees have jurisdiction for the entire day, at the field of play. If you're having a beer after the game at the field, and you call the ref a cheating f*shiraz c*nt, he can legitimately give you a red card for foul and abusive language.

It would just become he said/she said though. The "home" team could say he did it, the away team saying he didn't.

The reserves ref can't come onto the first team pitch and punish a player.

[Chade]

Referee reports; eye-witnesses. You know, the normal set of evidence.

Referees have jurisdiction for the entire day, at the field of play. If you're having a beer after the game at the field, and you call the ref a cheating f*shiraz c*nt, he can legitimately give you a red card for foul and abusive language.

It would just become he said/she said though. The "home" team could say he did it, the away team saying he didn't.

The reserves ref can't come onto the first team pitch and punish a player.

That's a "slippery slope" argument - i.e. where does it end? You have to apply some standard of "truthiness" (I think it's called that? A lawyer would complement/correct what I'm saying here) to each view. You're saying that effectively a whole group would perjure themselves (to be fair, not like that hasn't/doesn't happen) to get the result they want. That happens when there's no consequence to your actions... law break-down, society broken, etc.

The reserves ref won't be on the first team pitch punishing a player, because technically the player should have left the ground already - either that or call the police.

[Kim Kallstrom]

We had a situation on the weekend where a first team player invaded the pitch during the reserves fixture to get involved in a fight, he was subsequently ejected from the grounds, yet played in the first team game that followed. I would have thought if he was ejected he would be unable to play in the first team fixture, especially given he was reported for something as bad as that. However, the referee seemed to consider them separate games and that the findings of the report/investigation would determine his punishment.

That guy was a , although it was good that a representative from the club came up and apologised for his actions. Can't believe he was allowed to play in the next match though.

[God is an Englishman]

That's a "slippery slope" argument - i.e. where does it end? You have to apply some standard of "truthiness" (I think it's called that? A lawyer would complement/correct what I'm saying here) to each view. You're saying that effectively a whole group would perjure themselves (to be fair, not like that hasn't/doesn't happen) to get the result they want. That happens when there's no consequence to your actions... law break-down, society broken, etc.

The reserves ref won't be on the first team pitch punishing a player, because technically the player should have left the ground already - either that or call the police.

Well I did say I was playing devils advocate.

As you said yourself

to be fair, not like that hasn't/doesn't happen

I don't think the police would be that interested if the guy is on the pitch playing with the first team refs permission.

[Clever Trevor]

We had a situation on the weekend where a first team player invaded the pitch during the reserves fixture to get involved in a fight, he was subsequently ejected from the grounds, yet played in the first team game that followed. I would have thought if he was ejected he would be unable to play in the first team fixture, especially given he was reported for something as bad as that. However, the referee seemed to consider them separate games and that the findings of the report/investigation would determine his punishment.

That is particularly tricky. I think he would be eligible to play. There is nothing the referee can do to stop the club fielding a player that has not been suspended by the league, if he is registered and has his player card.

If he's ejected from the ground (on reasonable terms), he shouldn't have been able to play... I don't think you even have to refer to the referee (for the A's) for that...?

Let's use an analogy. If you were at a gig and got into a fight you would get kicked out of the venue. Why should you then be let in later on to see the next band play?

Referees have jurisdiction for the entire day, at the field of play. If you're having a beer after the game at the field, and you call the ref a cheating f*shiraz c*nt, he can legitimately give you a red card for foul and abusive language.

Once the referee has left the field of play at the end of a game he cannot issue any cautions or send offs for any reason. However, citing your example, he should write an incident report and expect that the league to follow thru with any relevant punishments, such as a suspension commensurate with a red card for foul and abusive language.

It was a club referee that ejected him from the grounds and he told the first team referee about the incident and that he was not permitted to play on our grounds. The referee refused to have any involvement in it basically. I agree common sense would suggest that there should be no way that he be allowed to play given what had just taken place and this was the general consensus, but if the referee allows him to play then we can't physically prevent him from playing.

The way around this could be for your club official to call the police and state that a spectator involved in a fight has refused to leave the ground or has returned to the ground after being evicted. For all you know, he might be on parole or have an arrest warrant!

[Caretaker Coach]

I think it would be much easier if you just avoided getting sent off in the first place.

If I was the A's coach, and you were A's player that was sent off while playing for the B side, I would suspend you, end of story.

[bigpond]

If you get sent off, the referee is supposed to take your card, you can't then play the same day, as you won't have a card and be 'official'

Exactly and end of story.

If it is a club ref that sends u off then who knows what the case is but if there is an official in the B team then u won't play A team 100% that day cos u won't have a card.

[Chade]

That's a "slippery slope" argument - i.e. where does it end? You have to apply some standard of "truthiness" (I think it's called that? A lawyer would complement/correct what I'm saying here) to each view. You're saying that effectively a whole group would perjure themselves (to be fair, not like that hasn't/doesn't happen) to get the result they want. That happens when there's no consequence to your actions... law break-down, society broken, etc.

The reserves ref won't be on the first team pitch punishing a player, because technically the player should have left the ground already - either that or call the police.

Well I did say I was playing devils advocate.

Yep, still arguing the hypothetical.

As you said yourself

to be fair, not like that hasn't/doesn't happen

I don't think the police would be that interested if the guy is on the pitch playing with the first team refs permission.

What does the first team ref's authority have to do with the police enforcing a ground ejection? If he didn't view it, there's not much he should be doing...

[God is an Englishman]

As you said yourself

to be fair, not like that hasn't/doesn't happen

I don't think the police would be that interested if the guy is on the pitch playing with the first team refs permission.

What does the first team ref's authority have to do with the police enforcing a ground ejection? If he didn't view it, there's not much he should be doing...

Most grounds are on public property, as such you would not have the legal right to enforce a ground ejection.

If it's on your own property and the ref is allowing the guy to play then you would imagine the opposition would refuse to play as the home team are attempting to stop them using a player that the referee is comfortable in them using.