Ok, so what we know is that now the FA have rescinded the red card he got against Man City on Saturday, John Terry will be free to play against the red side of Manchester on Sunday. But what we don’t know, and what will continue to be debated I guess, is why?

The initial argument from those of us watching the game of course was that it couldn’t be deemed a ‘professional foul’ because he wasn’t the last man. But since Halsey’s decision was based on it being ‘serious foul play’, does that put a different perspective on it?

As far as FIFA are concerned, ‘serious foul play’ is defined as:

“A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

“Using excessive force means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

“Any player who lunges at an opponent when challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent, is guilty of serious foul play.”

As ambiguous as you’d expect really, and that’s where the arguments will come from. You see, if you look at what could be considered ‘excessive force’, then clearly, wrapping your arm around an opponent’s waist would have to come into this category. Then, if you look at that ‘excessive force’ meaning a player has ‘far exceeded the necessary use of force’, again, Terry wouldn’t have an argument at all. However, if ‘exceeding the necessary use of force’ has to mean he is in danger of injuring the opponent (as suggested above), then he suddenly has a reason to appeal because whilst it was a very cynical foul, it wasn’t one that was likely to injure Jo.

The trouble is though, a lot of these fouls and the decisions that go with them are down to interpretation. Why else would half the Premier League refs be backing Halsey (who, by the way has previously given Chelsea 5 red cards – 3 of which have now been rescinded – and stands by his decision) whilst the other half think the FA decision was the correct one?

Does the answer lay in the amount of discretion an individual ref is allowed to use during the course of a game then? Because we’re all well aware of the inconsistencies not just from week to week, but even from one game to another. And where would the refs learn how to use this sort of discretion anyway? Well, I guess that depends how much they rely on ‘The Referee’s Survival Guide’, which defines ‘serious foul play’ as:

“misconduct, often violent, which consists of the clearly disproportionate use of physical force against an opponent during a contest for the ball on the field, and while the ball is in play.”

If this is the case, then of course you might judge a player wrapping his arm around an opponent as evidence of a ‘disproportionate use of physical force’. But then why would ref’s use these guidelines which seem to differ from that of FIFA?

Maybe something to do with Keith Hackett endorsing them?

Filed under: Rants