Keeper sent off for kicking pitch invader

[nirvana]

When the keeper first looks round, there's a guy charging him 2 yards away. (and defo looking like he doesn't want to congratulate the keeper at that point) The first kick to the midriff is therefore entirely reasonable self defence.

The pitch invader is thereafter on the ground, posing no immediate danger and the stewards are closing in.  So at that point, all the additional kicks are just thuggery and he deserves a red card and disciplinary action thereafter.

I have no sympathy with the pitch invader btw, I don't care if the stewards took him out back and gave him his reward. 

But it isn't the keeper's job.

level, obv

[kinboshi]

This red card is a lot more harsh imo:

[action man]

kinda like the burglar/homeowner stance and the Tony Martin incidence, im as right wing as you could possibly be in the latter situation. (i think its perfectly reasonable to shoot someone burgling you in cold blood and not lose a wink of sleep over it) In the first instance I don't think its callous to punch the guy in the head several times and the only problems with the kicks is that they didn't connect properly. Anyone who crosses the line (literally) into an arena they know they are forbidden from should face a reprimand. Only when the invader slipped out of consciousness would I feel any further attacks to be OTT.

[kinboshi]

But FIFA's rules mandate that any violence towards a fan is punished by a red card, so the keeper and manager can see why the red was given.

Not sure it was necessary in the second video though as he merely restrained the idiot rather than striking him.

[AlrightJack]

kinda like the burglar/homeowner stance and the Tony Martin incidence, im as right wing as you could possibly be in the latter situation. (i think its perfectly reasonable to shoot someone burgling you in cold blood and not lose a wink of sleep over it) In the first instance I don't think its callous to punch the guy in the head several times and the only problems with the kicks is that they didn't connect properly. Anyone who crosses the line (literally) into an arena they know they are forbidden from should face a reprimand. Only when the invader slipped out of consciousness would I feel any further attacks to be OTT.

In before the rest of the have-a-go's who claim they would happily kill any intruder who trespassed their doorstep. Shoot and then ask questions later. The Met needs more guys like you these days.

[Josedinho]

But FIFA's rules mandate that any violence towards a fan is punished by a red card, so the keeper and manager can see why the red was given.

Not sure it was necessary in the second video though as he merely restrained the idiot rather than striking him.

Disagree with this. 1st vid intruder looks a threat so is dealt with until stewards arrive. 2nd vid intruder is a clown and happily runs around for a while without being threatening and runs passed loads of people. Neither should be a red but definitely find the first more acceptable.

[kinboshi]

But FIFA's rules mandate that any violence towards a fan is punished by a red card, so the keeper and manager can see why the red was given.

Not sure it was necessary in the second video though as he merely restrained the idiot rather than striking him.

Disagree with this. 1st vid intruder looks a threat so is dealt with until stewards arrive. 2nd vid intruder is a clown and happily runs around for a while without being threatening and runs passed loads of people. Neither should be a red but definitely find the first more acceptable.

The difference is that other than restraining him he doesn't commit any violence towards the idiot.  If he'd followed it up with a swift punch on the nose and a headbutt (probably justified) then I can see the ref having no decision other than the red.  But helping the stewards do their job is hardly a red-card offence.

[action man]

kinda like the burglar/homeowner stance and the Tony Martin incidence, im as right wing as you could possibly be in the latter situation. (i think its perfectly reasonable to shoot someone burgling you in cold blood and not lose a wink of sleep over it) In the first instance I don't think its callous to punch the guy in the head several times and the only problems with the kicks is that they didn't connect properly. Anyone who crosses the line (literally) into an arena they know they are forbidden from should face a reprimand. Only when the invader slipped out of consciousness would I feel any further attacks to be OTT.

In before the rest of the have-a-go's who claim they would happily kill any intruder who trespassed their doorstep. Shoot and then ask questions later. The Met needs more guys like you these days.

wouldnt be a have a go hero, would just be too scared not to, fight vs flight is very complex and dangerous.

[kinboshi]

kinda like the burglar/homeowner stance and the Tony Martin incidence, im as right wing as you could possibly be in the latter situation. (i think its perfectly reasonable to shoot someone burgling you in cold blood and not lose a wink of sleep over it) In the first instance I don't think its callous to punch the guy in the head several times and the only problems with the kicks is that they didn't connect properly. Anyone who crosses the line (literally) into an arena they know they are forbidden from should face a reprimand. Only when the invader slipped out of consciousness would I feel any further attacks to be OTT.

In before the rest of the have-a-go's who claim they would happily kill any intruder who trespassed their doorstep. Shoot and then ask questions later. The Met needs more guys like you these days.

wouldnt be a have a go hero, would just be too scared not to, fight vs flight is very complex and dangerous.

Most do the third option (which is often overlooked, but is many an animals initial response to danger), which is freeze.

[AlrightJack]

kinda like the burglar/homeowner stance and the Tony Martin incidence, im as right wing as you could possibly be in the latter situation. (i think its perfectly reasonable to shoot someone burgling you in cold blood and not lose a wink of sleep over it) In the first instance I don't think its callous to punch the guy in the head several times and the only problems with the kicks is that they didn't connect properly. Anyone who crosses the line (literally) into an arena they know they are forbidden from should face a reprimand. Only when the invader slipped out of consciousness would I feel any further attacks to be OTT.

In before the rest of the have-a-go's who claim they would happily kill any intruder who trespassed their doorstep. Shoot and then ask questions later. The Met needs more guys like you these days.

wouldnt be a have a go hero, would just be too scared not to, fight vs flight is very complex and dangerous.

Too frightened but wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over shooting someone in cold blood.

[action man]

yeh, weird isnt it.

[Josedinho]

But FIFA's rules mandate that any violence towards a fan is punished by a red card, so the keeper and manager can see why the red was given.

Not sure it was necessary in the second video though as he merely restrained the idiot rather than striking him.

Disagree with this. 1st vid intruder looks a threat so is dealt with until stewards arrive. 2nd vid intruder is a clown and happily runs around for a while without being threatening and runs passed loads of people. Neither should be a red but definitely find the first more acceptable.

The difference is that other than restraining him he doesn't commit any violence towards the idiot.  If he'd followed it up with a swift punch on the nose and a headbutt (probably justified) then I can see the ref having no decision other than the red.  But helping the stewards do their job is hardly a red-card offence.

Should read "one of the differences is" surely? I'd say the actions of the intruder also make them different.
Like I said I don't believe either are red cards. I imagine the rule was made for incidents like Cantona not for when you get attacked by a "fan"

[Josedinho]

Another shocking red imo

[AlrightJack]

yeh, weird isnt it.

Indeed

[kinboshi]

Yeah, I meant the major difference - but you're right, the 'intruders' seemed to have clearly different motives.

Page 118 of this:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf

"LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT

Violent conduct

A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or
brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.

He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person.

Violent conduct may occur either on the fi eld of play or outside its
boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not.

Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent
conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal.

The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when
the ball is next out of play.

Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass
confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active
intervention.

A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent
conduct must be sent off."

The word excessive is in there, which is why I don't think the second example is 'excessive', but can see why the ref thought the first one (with the kicks after the bloke is on the floor) could be deemed excessive.