DEFINITELY A STRAIGHT RED ON THIS FOR VIOLENT CONDUCT IN MY OPINION ! THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SEASON ENDING INJURY FOR SURE !! VERY RECKLESS AND INTENT TO SERIOUSLY HARM THE PLAYER .
Actually, it would be for Serious Foul Play because the ball was there to be played when he started the slide. This is not reckless! That would imply a yellow card. This needs to be described as excessive force and endangers the safety of an opponent. The language matters. If a governing body reads 'reckless' on a game report, they may only give him a 1 or 2 game suspension when this challenge deserves at least 3 to start.
7:00 DEFINITELY A STRAIGHT RED ON THIS FOR VIOLENT CONDUCT IN MY OPINION ! VERY RECKLESS AND INTENT TO SERIOUSLY HARM THE PLAYER . WHAT IRRITATES ME THE MOST IS THAT THE CRAWFORD PLAYER ARGUED THE CALL AND BELIEVES THERE WAS NO FOUL !! THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SEASON ENDING INJURY FOR SURE !!
Nah Robb, that's not violent conduct. Straight red for SFP is something I can get behind. According to most of my referee buddies, Crawford hasn't been the most fun of teams to ref this season. Can't wait till I ref HS in San Diego next season!
@robbwatson7101 you need to get the wording correct. (See my comment in the other thread). The difference in a suspension between Serious Foul Play and Violent Conduct can be great. SFP, depending on the league, usually starts at 3 games where VC usually starts at 5 games.
Attacker was running through on goal and the defender who was behind him went from the left to the right going through the attackers legs and clipped them, causing him to fall in the box, penalty fo sho
