Rage Online

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:01 pm**

Clearly having too much time on my hands, I dropped an email to the FA asking them to look in to the Matt Ritchie -v- Ballboy incident.

Dear Sirs,
I attended the League 2 fixture between Oxford United and Slumdon Town on Saturday 3rd March and was concerned with one particular incident involving the Slumdon player Matt Ritchie and the referee's response to the incident. In approximately the 43rd minute of the game, the ball went out for a goal kick to Oxford. The ballboy behind the goal retrieved the ball and was returning in to the Oxford goalkeeper ready to restart the game. This was clearly not done quickly enough for Matt Ritchie's liking as he ran up to the ballboy (who I believe is 14 years old), shoved him in the chest and knocked the ball from his hands. This incident occurred directly in front of the Oxford fans in what was already a fairly volatile atmosphere due to it being a local derby which also saw Oxford's striker, James Constable, sent off after 10 minutes. The incident with the ballboy clearly enraged the crowd and almost led to disorder.

Immediately following the clash with the ballboy, Ritchie was involved with a verbal confrontation with a couple of the Oxford players who had witnessed the incident. Ritchie was then cautioned by the referee, Graham Salisbury, showing a yellow card.

I would be interested to know for what offence Ritchie was cautioned by Mr Salisbury. To my mind, the altercation with the ballboy was a clear case of violent conduct. Violent Conduct is defined in Law 12 as &quotusing excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person&quot. Law 12 goes on to say that a player guilty of an offence of violent conduct MUST be sent off [my emphasis]. I fail to see how a player shoving a 14year old child in the chest in such a fashion (and in such an atmosphere) can be seen as anything other than violent conduct. My suspicion is that the referee did not actually witness the altercation with the ballboy and Ritchie was cautioned for the verbal exchange with the Oxford players. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could investigate this incident as a matter of urgency as to allow an assault on a child to be seen as merely a yellow card offence is a worrying precedent.

Many thanks in advance.

And this is their response, which doesn't actually answer the question:

Thank you for contacting The Football Association.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. The FA has investigated and liaised with Oxford United on this matter. The player was cautioned by the Referee for the incident and has subsequently apologised to the satisfaction of the ballboy and Oxford United.

Kind regards

Gary Stonehouse | Customer Relations
Communications Division
The FA Group
Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London, HA9 0WS
Postal address: Wembley Stadium, PO Box 1966, London, SW1P 9EQ
T ||44 (0) 845 458 1966 | F||44 (0) 844 980 0666 |
www.TheFA.com , www.wembleystadium.com

I feel a follow up email coming on!

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:29 pm**

Bravo, great email well written, how do they know the ball boy ( who is now a legend by the way)was satisfied with the apology have they asked him? IÔÇÖm sure if it was a ball girl it would be a whole different ball game, no pun intended.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:35 pm**

I dunno, I expect they'd say that in the referees opinion Ritchie didn't use &quotexcessive force&quot when he shoved the ballboy. Might not be correct, but then no-one agrees with every decision made by the referee. Personally I think it's better left where it is (I suspect the club agree). We won, twice, let's try and do it graciously without antagonising matters further.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:07 pm**

To be fair Ritchie sprinted the length of the pitch afterwards to apologise and to shake the hand of the ballboy.

We won the game. More important things to worry about (like getting 3 points tomorrow) in my view.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:10 pm**

&quotPaul Cooper&quot wrote:To be fair Ritchie sprinted the length of the pitch afterwards to apologise and to shake the hand of the ballboy.

We won the game. More important things to worry about (like getting 3 points tomorrow) in my view.

They cynically worked hard to get our striker banned for three games. Seems only fair to return the favour.

What I don't understand is why the yellow card - if the ref saw it, surely it's red for violent conduct.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:35 pm**

Or - the ballboy (and his colleagues) were being deliberately provocative in delaying returning the ball when it went out of play, which is cheating and, in another world and time, deserved a clip around the ear. I thought the behaviour of the ballboys behind the goal and, indeed, the crowd in retaining the ball was embarassing and very poor for the reputation of the club.

Just because it was the Red Filth doesn't excuse the behaviour. Ritchie was entitled to the ball and the ballboy should have released it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:56 pm**

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:Ritchie was entitled to the ball and the ballboy should have released it.

Sorry, but IMHO that is total guff. The ball had gone out for a goal kick and Ritchie had no claim to the ball whatsoever.

If the referee felt that the ballboys were deliberately slowing the game down, then he could have taken action to address this - as I've seen them do on other occasions over the years (and even taken towels off them at Cambridge!). And, to be honest, I don't think they were being THAT slow in returning the ball. [Agree that the crowd holding on to the ball was pathetic though].

And just because he subsequently apologised, I don't see how that absolves Ritchie. Strip away the foliage and he assaulted a child, plain and simple. As SmileyMan says, I don't understand how the referee (if he saw the actual incident) could view this as anything other than violent conduct hence my email to the FA.

Their response hasn't answered the two key elements here: did the referee actually see the altercation with the ballboy and, if so, how is it not violent conduct?

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:28 pm**

I could be wrong but didn't this incident occur at a corner rather than a goal kick? As I remember it Ritchie was going to get the ball ready for the corner and the ball boy got in his way, almost tackling him to prevent him from doing it quickly. Not wanting to excuse Ritchie's behaviour at all as a pro footballer obviously shouldn't be pushing ball boys but you can at least understand why he was annoyed. Like I say, I could be wrong as there were other, more important things going on that day!

If, as stated, the issue is now resolved to the satisfaction of the club and, more importantly, the ball boy himself then what's the point of the fans dragging it out?

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:32 pm**

Just because it was the Red Filth doesn't excuse the behaviour.

Yes it does!

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:38 pm**

I tend to agree with Myles.

It doesn't really make any difference what the ball boy did or didn't do. The fact is that a grown man assaulted a child in a public arena.

This is akin to the Cantona incident at Selhurst Park several years ago, albeit on a lesser scale in terms of the level of violence.

My view is that Ritchie deserved a straight red card, with multiple game ban and also a chat with the police.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:10 pm**

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:Or - the ballboy (and his colleagues) were being deliberately provocative in delaying returning the ball when it went out of play, which is cheating and, in another world and time, deserved a clip around the ear. I thought the behaviour of the ballboys behind the goal and, indeed, the crowd in retaining the ball was embarassing and very poor for the reputation of the club.

Just because it was the Red Filth doesn't excuse the behaviour. Ritchie was entitled to the ball and the ballboy should have released it.

Agree with you. Boorish behaviour by the young lad. Simple as.

The booking for Ritchie was correct in the cold light of day even though at the time , SSU were up on their ancient feet croaking OFF OFF OFF etc.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:02 pm**

Striking any other person within the field of play is violent conduct, whether that person is a player or not. See the incident post on here not long ago where a player tackled a streaker and got a red card.

The online commentary has it as dissent, which is laughable. I'd like to see the ref's report as to what he booked him for.

It's fine to argue about whether the laws are right or wrong, but they should be applied as they stand.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:50 pm**

Agree that it is violent conduct. By laying hands on the ballboy in any fashion, Ritchie committed the VC offense and a push definitely applies.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:23 pm**

Well I've emailed the FA again and ask them to confirm the contents of the referees report, i.e. did the referee book Ritchie for the altercation with the ballboy or the &quotafters&quot. Saying it was for the &quotincident&quot is too vague for my liking.

I also made the point that if this had happened at a Premiership game in full view of MOTD cameras a hell of a lot more would be made of it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:27 pm**

&quotAncient Colin&quot wrote:Or - the ballboy (and his colleagues) were being deliberately provocative in delaying returning the ball when it went out of play, which is cheating and, in another world and time, deserved a clip around the ear. I thought the behaviour of the ballboys behind the goal and, indeed, the crowd in retaining the ball was embarassing and very poor for the reputation of the club.

Just because it was the Red Filth doesn't excuse the behaviour. Ritchie was entitled to the ball and the ballboy should have released it.

Agree!

Rage Online

FA view on the Ballboy incident

FA view on the Ballboy incident

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: