|
Post by Johnny on Apr 29, 2011 11:10:55 GMT 10
Could anybody answer this please? Why is the Granville automatic (minimum) suspension 4 matches for 'Serious Foul Play' (R1) and only 2 matches for 'Violent Conduct' (R2)?
The differential in suspensions suggests that 'Violent Conduct' is the less serious offence. The real difference between these two offence codes is how the offence was committed (whilst challenging for the ball or not). I do not think there is any suggestion in the laws of the game that either offence code should be viewed as more serious than the other.
In my view it may be appropriate to give only 2 matches for some R1 offences and to give a higher suspension for some R2 offences.
To highlight the problem I have heard players talk about trying to get an R1 'downgraded' to R2 to obtain a lower suspension. This is obviously nonsense because the difference between the two is how the offence was committed and not how serious it was. If anything I would think that R2 would more often be the more serious of the two but the Granville automatic suspension guideline is the other way around.
Any comments and explanations will be appreciated?
|
|
|
Post by nextgenref on Apr 30, 2011 0:30:22 GMT 10
does seem a bit odd that SFP is auto 4 weeks i had a kid week one go for a jumping header and in the process studed the oponent in the stomach, (intentions questionable) felt a bit bad for him for getting 4 weeks as its a far cry from walking up to some one (ball out of play) and kicking them, but i think the higher auto has something to do with the difference between the 2, deterent for players attempting to attk the ball runner maybe, but i think alot can be lernt from the refs report (if done correctly) and maybe a quick discision be made based on that (rather than a full inquiry or auto suspension)
|
|
|
Post by rhythmlynx on May 31, 2011 11:06:24 GMT 10
Looks like there's no comments added here Johnny nor explanations but I agree with you that this does seem odd in the manner these two send-off offences are considered and adjudged rather than on the actual incident.
|
|