Wolves v Arsenal
- Thread starter Ryanj91
- Start date
No it doesn't.
Was it an attempt to play the ball? Intent, or no, that is the only question to answer for so-called double jeopardy rule..
If the answer is no, then, it's a red card offence.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Instead - and I haven’t seen it - you could ask has the attacker initiated contact and then give no foul..,
Not watching the game, but I can picture what happened from the image. Probably entirely accidental
However, referees have united by punishing the defender any time there's contact of this nature. This is on the basis that the defender has acted 'carelessly' by clipping the attacker. The defender can see the attacker, so arguably the defender should act with precaution (attacker can't see behind him)
For me, it tends to boil down to 'who crossed whose path'. If the defender crosses the back of the attacker's path, it's a foul... full stop; otherwise most ref's give a foul regardless
No it isn't. You have misunderstood the change.
It used to be any dogso was a red. It was felt that where a player challenged for the ball that this should be downgraded.
This is not a challenge for the ball, so the red card that has been the case for as long as I have watched the game 20+yrs.
That's a noble opinion, but that's not how the laws are written.
that is why it would be a yellow and a penalty.
I can understand where he's coming from however. Often these incidents are entirely accidental
On the other hand, why should the attacker be denied an opportunity IF the attacker is not at fault?
As a ref, expect backlash regardless of the decision
Completely agree. This sort of 'foul' should be exempt from the straight red dogso criteria imo. But for the time being, it's not.
'No attempt to play the ball' means there's no yellow card 'get out'. It's just another hole in the LOTG which needs plugging IMO
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
As we often emphasize when talking about SFP red cards, intent has absolutely nothing to do with the ultimate determination of misconduct.
The only thing that the referee must judge is whether the defender is making an attempt to play the ball. Let's look at a hypothetical play. Suppose Luiz is late on a sliding tackle and has no chance to play the ball. This would probably be a "desperation" move, but still unintentional. However, if the tackle is very late and has no chance to win the ball, then it's still a red card.
I know that still frames don't always tell the story (and I'll watch this later tonight to see the whole play), but based solely on the still frame I'd say Luiz has no chance to play the ball and that the send-off is the correct decision. Now we could start debating whether a play like this should be a caution based on lack of intent, but do we really want to start being charged with reading player's minds? Elite professional athletes can do an awful lot to make an intentional play look very accidental.
The only thing that the referee must judge is whether the defender is making an attempt to play the ball. Let's look at a hypothetical play. Suppose Luiz is late on a sliding tackle and has no chance to play the ball. This would probably be a "desperation" move, but still unintentional. However, if the tackle is very late and has no chance to win the ball, then it's still a red card.
I know that still frames don't always tell the story (and I'll watch this later tonight to see the whole play), but based solely on the still frame I'd say Luiz has no chance to play the ball and that the send-off is the correct decision. Now we could start debating whether a play like this should be a caution based on lack of intent, but do we really want to start being charged with reading player's minds? Elite professional athletes can do an awful lot to make an intentional play look very accidental.
It's not. It falls under no possibility to play the ball. Its a red card under the current laws. As unfair as it might feel, its a correct decision.
Fair enough, in a match on a Saturday, I wouldn't have previously been sending the bloke off haha - at least I know I should now.
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter what feels right. It feels harsh but the laws are simple:
DOGSO is a red unless it's a genuine attempt. Is it? No. Red.
DOGSO is a red unless it's a genuine attempt. Is it? No. Red.
Whether the contact is intentional or otherwise is neither here nor there, if you think the defender has fouled the attacker you then have to make decisions ...
- Are the DOGSO conditions met. Clearly they are here, he is clean through moving towards goal with the ball under control and with no defender even being close to getting there.
- If the answer to the above is yes, and as the foul occurred inside the penalty area, you then have to ask whether the foul happened as part of a challenge for the ball. If yes it is a caution rather than red card, but given the ball isn't even in shot there is no chance that can be a consideration here and it has to be a red card for DOGSO.
I've seen it on the highlights. I don't think it was careless by Luiz, I think it was entirely accidental. Therefore, no foul, no DOGSO
That said, referees have united to class all of these as 'careless', so I'd be in a minority (not a place any ref wants to be)
Like I say, the attacker deserves their OGSO, so the ref is gonna get it in the neck regardless of the decision
There's little viable alternative. Attacker is through on goal and gets taken out by the defender behind him, for me that is careless by Luiz as he has a duty of care not to make contact. To say it was accidental and just give nothing just isn't fair.
The law is an ass though as had he lunged in rather than stay on his feet it would still have been a penalty but he probably would have only received a caution rather than red card.