A&H

Triple jeopardy - rule change coming?

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
"The Ifab board, consisting of the four home nations and four representatives fromFifa, took two other key decisions. So-called triple jeopardy will be outlawed - if a player makes a genuine attempt to play the ball in the box when conceding a penalty, they will no longer be sent off. The change will be introduced for a two-year trial period from June. There was also an agreement in principle to experimentation with a fourth substitution in extra time, although Ford said more data was required before making a final decision."

http://www.theguardian.com/football...ls-video-technology-referees-gianni-infantino

DOGSO no longer sanctioned by red card if player makes genuine attempt in the box... can of worms or?
 
The Referee Store
Imagine how weird it will be in the close in/out penalty situations, to have the defender shouting that the foul was in the box, therefore just giving away the penalty, thus ensuring he is not getting sent off for DOGSO. haha

Will be very strange!
 
Can't they just leaves the laws alone rather than changing them every year to make everything more complicated?
 
I'd be surprised if the phrase "genuine attempt to play the ball" was included in any wording of a change in the laws. In simple terms a tackle within the penalty area would be treated on merit - foul or no foul - but the DOGSO would no longer be an issue. I'd be happy with this.
 
santa sangria said:
There was also an agreement in principle to experimentation with a fourth substitution in extra time
Click to expand...

As a referee I have no problem with this but from a general footballing perspective I'm not keen on increasing substitutes. We're almost at a stage where teams can have a full second XI on the bench. There is much talk about the squad system but I feel this gives an advantage to the bigger, richer clubs. Rather than having a squad of top class international players sitting on the bench it might be better for the game in general if they were actually playing elsewhere.
 
The article on the FIFA website is (unsurprisingly) much more informative. Perhaps the most significant thing, at least in terms of immediate effects on the majority of referees, is that the complete overhaul of the Laws (which was already discussed on a couple of threads) was unanimously approved.

Today’s meeting, held at the St David’s Hotel and chaired by the President of the Football Association of Wales David Griffiths, also saw the most substantial revision of the Laws of the Game get the green light plus key outcomes on other agenda items including “triple punishment”.

The first item on the agenda was the comprehensive revision of the Laws of the Game – an 18-month project of The IFAB Technical Sub-Committee, led by former English Premier League referee David Elleray. The IFAB unanimously approved the revision, which they identified as a ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to address anomalies and inconsistences in the Laws.

While the main focus is improving the structure and phraseology – with each Law and interpretation now combined, the word count halved and gender neutral language used throughout – some of the 94 edits also include Law changes that are based on common sense and meeting the needs of the modern game. For example, the ball will be able to move in any direction from the kick-off rather than only moving forward (Law 8), while a player who is injured by a challenge punished by a yellow/red card can now have a quick assessment/treatment on the field rather than having to leave the field which gave the offending team a numerical advantage (Law 5). It represents the most comprehensive revision of the Laws ever undertaken in The IFAB’s 130-year history.
Click to expand...

http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news...es-2768643.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news
 
Last edited:
Denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (Law 12)

Where a player commits and offence within his own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player should be cautioned unless:

  • - The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or

  • - The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or

  • - The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc..)
In all the above circumstances the player should be dismissed from the field of play.

As I said....completely unworkable at grassroots level and will cause no end of grief.
 
Padfoot said:
Where a player commits and offence within his own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player should be cautioned unless:

  • - The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or

  • - The offending player does not attempt to play the ball or there is no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball or

  • - The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. serious foul play, violent conduct etc..)
In all the above circumstances the player should be dismissed from the field of play.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this wording is far more complicated than it needs to be. If the LOTG are to be changed then just exclude the DOGSO within the penalty area and punish any foul with no card/yellow card/red card as the LOTG require.
 
This is absolutely stupid. It introduces more room for interpretation when the game needs less - this places even more focus on the impact of the referee himself rather than the players.
 
Stupid, stupid, stupid....
As others are saying, more issues at local level. Last week referees will win. A good referee who does it properly, will have more dissent. Clarity is what is needed.:confused::poop:
 
I agree, unnecessarily complicated. However, in practice, I can see referees giving defenders the benefit of the doubt in the penalty area in 95% of cases including all those ones where keepers rush out and arrive at the challenge late after the ball has gone. For what it's worth, I support the intent of the change as replacing one obvious DOGSO with another by the award of a penalty (along with any normal sanctions that apply to the foul) should be sufficient punishment and less unnecessarily game changing
 
Good luck with applying that one and satisfying assessors on it too. Also I note the law changes are effective June 1st rather than July 1st like the usually are. That means they are applicable for the Euros
 
Our season starts properly at the start of May. If the laws are "published" by then we may get the instruction to use them. Shame we just had our reminder courses.

Personally I don't like it. I think it may lead to some very aggressive challenges. Defenders and goalkeepers will think they are immune from the red. It will be like a red rag - to replace the red card.
 
I think it's good.

If it's a genuine mistake you don't get binned. If you just foul for the sake of it then you get sent off.

Players won't know the laws....it'll cause confusion. I'll know I've done the right thing. I don't see what will change
 
Darius said:
I think it's good.

If it's a genuine mistake you don't get binned. If you just foul for the sake of it then you get sent off.

Players won't know the laws....it'll cause confusion. I'll know I've done the right thing. I don't see what will change
Click to expand...

Define 'genuine mistake'?

There are many many reasons why challenges will have no possibility of playing the ball.....not skilful enough, too slow, wrong angle, attackers shifts ball at last second etc etc

Every defender will tell you they 'tried to play the ball'.......those protests are simply going to escalate in intensity with this abortion of a law change.

It will shatter match control and invite some truly horrendous challenges.....
 
Precisely. Now the referee needs to make the subjective decision of whether a foul occurred and whether there was an OGSO. With this change, he needs to make an additional subjective decision of whether the foul was a legitimate attempt for the ball (whatever on earth that means). In short, we're now required to make a subjective decision on the intent of the foul.

This is going to massively increase abuse around these decisions.
 
I recall my dad telling me that intent use to be in the laws when he did his course in 1985 and they eventually got round to binning it as you do not know what someones intent is, so how do we know if it's a genuine tackle and the player is just really rubbish or it's a player with a bit more skill taking a player out (accidentally of course)? Just made a situation more difficult for the sake of it and now it becomes subjective for the Ref, and so it also becomes more of a personal decision for the player, could possibly result in the player taking your decision more negatively should you dismiss him and letting you know physically.

At least it guarantees the pundits something to talk about and then make local level refs games harder once they have filled peoples heads with nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top