https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vJJRc1CN1U

was the referee right to send the keeper off?

[flash=420,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vJJRc1CN1U[/flash]

Yes.  It was Violent Conduct.  Straight red for violent conduct.  Even if the "fan" dared to fight the keeper, while he was down he was already subdued, so the kicking was excessive.

P.S.:
This BBC report indicates the red card was rescinded.  That's fine if they can support it.  I still support the referee; he had to react to control the situation on ground.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16296118.stm

isale_gan2:

Yes. It was Violent Conduct. Straight red for violent conduct. Even if the "fan" dared to fight the keeper, while he was down he was already subdued, so the kicking was excessive.

P.S.:
This BBC report indicates the red card was rescinded. That's fine if they can support it. I still support the referee; he had to react to control the situation on ground.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16296118.stm

you are 100% right and i think it's very foolish for the FA to rescind the decision. it sets a bad precedent

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16296118.stm

Alkmaar's furious coach Gert Jan Verbeek ordered his team to leave the pitch.

The red card has now been rescinded by the Dutch Football Association (KNVB) but they have not decided whether to replay the last 16 tie or award it to Ajax.

It would be hard to justify rescinding the red and also replaying the match.  I think the other team would fight that ruling. 

FYI, I checked the tables.  Alkmaar are on top in the Dutch League, and Ajax is within just a couple of points from the top.  I wonder what would have happened if either team was in relegation zone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/holland_results/tables/default.stm

Hey!  I watched the video again, and I watched the one on the BBC website.  That one shows the beginning that the first video didn't.

The keeper kicks the invader on the chest - looks very justified, since the invader appears to have one leg raised at the very moment he got close to the keeper and he noticed him.

Keeper has him on ground and aims another kick to his thigh.  This also looks justified to me.  He had to make sure the man had been disabled and not able to get up and injure him.  Totally defensive move as far as I can see.

He then aims another kick. . .  Up to then all his kicks have not been offensive/violent, he could have kicked in a lot worse places than the leg (think about kicks to the face, groin, chest while on on ground, etc).  This third kick also does not look lethal.  I will have to modify my comment that the behaviour merits a violent conduct charge.  It is very debatable.

When the referee gives the red card, does it not look like it is for the player in #17 shirt?  What were the other teammates doing while the security was holding the invader to the ground?  Were they also looking to do more damage?  Also, I don't see where it specifically states that the card was for violent conduct. 

Okay, it's fuzzy.

P.S. It definitely look like the situation was getting more volatile. The actions of the Alkmaar team to the referee for example. . .

I think the goalkeeper went to far.

isale_gan2:

Hey!  I watched the video again, and I watched the one on the BBC website.  That one shows the beginning that the first video didn't.

The keeper kicks the invader on the chest - looks very justified, since the invader appears to have one leg raised at the very moment he got close to the keeper and he noticed him.

Keeper has him on ground and aims another kick to his thigh.  This also looks justified to me.  He had to make sure the man had been disabled and not able to get up and injure him.  Totally defensive move as far as I can see.

He then aims another kick. . .  Up to then all his kicks have not been offensive/violent, he could have kicked in a lot worse places than the leg (think about kicks to the face, groin, chest while on on ground, etc).  This third kick also does not look lethal.  I will have to modify my comment that the behaviour merits a violent conduct charge.  It is very debatable.

When the referee gives the red card, does it not look like it is for the player in #17 shirt?  What were the other teammates doing while the security was holding the invader to the ground?  Were they also looking to do more damage?  Also, I don't see where it specifically states that the card was for violent conduct. 

Okay, it's fuzzy.

P.S. It definitely look like the situation was getting more volatile. The actions of the Alkmaar team to the referee for example. . .

your analysis is very wrong. The action of the goalkeeper was initially self defence but it changed from self defence to assault. If you look at the youtube video (which has been posted on this thread),  the first kick of the goalkeeper was justified since that was for self defence, so up till 0.14 his action was justified, but from then onwards (moving towards the supporter and kicking him twice) his action becomes an assault. The attacker was already on the floor and a stadium steward was already nearby, getting ready to pin down the attacker, so kicking him another two times was totally unjustified. The referee was RIGHT in my own opinion 

Think it was a bad decision from the ref

shadrach77:

your analysis is very wrong. The action of the goalkeeper was initially self defence but it changed from self defence to assault. If you look at the youtube video (which has been posted on this thread),  the first kick of the goalkeeper was justified since that was for self defence, so up till 0.14 his action was justified, but from then onwards (moving towards the supporter and kicking him twice) his action becomes an assault. The attacker was already on the floor and a stadium steward was already nearby, getting ready to pin down the attacker, so kicking him another two times was totally unjustified. The referee was RIGHT in my own opinion 

Okay.  No matter what.  I support the referee.  You have to go with your gut when on ground.  Analysis is for after the fact, for armchair analysts like us.

Aside from that:

1) We both agree the first hit was in self-defense.  The surprise and all.
2) I concede the 3rd kick was not necessary.  But it also was not lethal.
3) The middle kick is the issue.  That was the first one landed after the guy was already on ground.  I understand why the keeper would have done that.  If you fell your attacker, how do you know he is still not a danger to you?  You pin him down; you kick him again to make sure he is thoroughly disabled!  

I really don't think you and I are that different.

Upon first viewing I reacted just as the referee did.  Which is why I understand what he did.

After settling down, I went into analysis mode.  That's when you have the luxury of judging rationally, not reacting with emotion.  Neither the referee nor the keeper had that luxury.  We do.

So, we're still . . .       


Here's more.  Very good images in this one.   
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077408/Esteban-Alvarado-Alkmaar-goalkeeper-attacks-fan-ran-pitch.html

dayokanu:

Think it was a bad decision from the ref

Of course you do.  You're disappointed the drunk teen wasn't taken out on a stretcher.  I kid I jest.

Ich denke, die refree war sehr richtig in seinem Akt der eine rote Karte für den Spieler.