Wolves v Arsenal

[Paul_10]

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.

I'm not too sure because if it's a tackle from behind surely the chances of getting the ball is pretty slim, if it was a more side on tackle then maybe.

Too me it's a clip of the heels and it's a clear DOGSO so red card is the right call. Does not stop people moaning about VAR, they will never ever going to overturn that.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm not too sure because if it's a tackle from behind surely the chances of getting the ball is pretty slim, if it was a more side on tackle then maybe.

Too me it's a clip of the heels and it's a clear DOGSO so red card is the right call. Does not stop people moaning about VAR, they will never ever going to overturn that.

I think that is where the R has to make a judgment as to whether it was actually an attempt to play the ball. Certainly for fouls with the feet there is a pretty strong presumption of an attempt to play the ball, but I think a lunge from behind is where an R would have to determine if it was actually an attempt to play the ball or simply a takedown.

 

[one]

Was it an attempt to play the ball? Intent, or no, that is the only question

I am in the penalty and red card camp. If this is a yellow then every defender would run very close to the one on one attacker for a bit of 'non-intentional' contact and a penalty miss.

However the words attempt and intent are synonymous. So intent does matter. But not in the context the OP is trying to use it. In other words the question is not "was he intending to foul the attacker". It is "was he intending to play the ball" when the foul happened? The answer to the second question is no given he had no chance to do so.

 

[JamesL]

I am in the penalty and red card camp. If this is a yellow then every defender would run very close to the one on one attacker for a bit of 'non-intentional' contact and a penalty miss.

However the words attempt and intent are synonymous. So intent does matter. But not in the context the OP is trying to use it. In other words the question is not "was he intending to foul the attacker". It is "was he intending to play the ball" when the foul happened? The answer to the second question is no given he had no chance to do so.

I meant intent to commit the foul as the poster was suggesting it was an accident which I was saying as irrelevant. That might have not been clear from my post but was the context in which I was looking at intent.

 

[Peter Grove]

I agree with @one - as I pointed out in the ManU Vs S'ton thread, defenders are already very adept at clipping the heels of a player running in front of them and making it look like an accident. If you make it into a lesser offence to do this in the penalty area, you'll see a plethora of "accidental" contact.

 

[Tonydent]

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

Accidental so no foul? Are you being serious? Intent hasn’t been necessary to commit a foul for absolutely donkeys years.

 

[Ryanj91]

I get the rules state that, but they introduced the yellow card sanction for a reason.
I'd say the wording of it refers to what I mentioned earlier, you take out a player on purpose - red card. The wording even implies this with acts to prevent the goal on purpose e.g. pulling shirt.
Luiz is essentially kicked, it isn't a trip because of how far away he is. The striker has taken a. Massive swing, so in a running situation he is nowhere near him for a 'cheeky trip' like some of you mentioned.

So the argument is... We've introduced the new law to prevent double jepeordy, this isn't really matching the law, but we haven to categorise it as something, let's look at the law and reasoning behind the whole law change... has Luiz done it to take out the player? No so caution.

Clatternburg, arguably our best referee for decades has said it should have been a yellow. He said that's accidents like that are deemed as a caution.

BBC are quoting it should have been a yellow with some rules they've found? Although the text isn't from the actual rule book .

The United one was worse because it was a massive dive from Martial. Both utterly ridiculous and lack of common sense.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

I get the rules state that, but they introduced the yellow card sanction for a reason.
I'd say the wording of it refers to what I mentioned earlier, you take out a player on purpose - red card. The wording even implies this with acts to prevent the goal on purpose e.g. pulling shirt.
Luiz is essentially kicked, it isn't a trip because of how far away he is. The striker has taken a. Massive swing, so in a running situation he is nowhere near him for a 'cheeky trip' like some of you mentioned.

So the argument is... We've introduced the new law to prevent double jepeordy, this isn't really matching the law, but we haven to categorise it as something, let's look at the law and reasoning behind the whole law change... has Luiz done it to take out the player? No so caution.

Clatternburg, arguably our best referee for decades has said it should have been a yellow. He said that's accidents like that are deemed as a caution.

BBC are quoting it should have been a yellow with some rules they've found? Although the text isn't from the actual rule book .

The United one was worse because it was a massive dive from Martial. Both utterly ridiculous and lack of common sense.

Common sense is irrelevant when the law gives no room for manoeuvre. You’re looking at it the wrong way round: it’s not ‘yellow unless it’s a pull/rugby tackle etc.’ it’s ‘red unless a genuine attempt.’
I’m struggling to see what the confusion is here.

 

[Ryanj91]

Common sense is irrelevant when the law gives no room for manoeuvre. You’re looking at it the wrong way round: it’s not ‘yellow unless it’s a pull/rugby tackle etc.’ it’s ‘red unless a genuine attempt.’
I’m struggling to see what the confusion is here.

That's not why the law was introduced though was it?
Being kicked isn't making an attempt for the ball, I get that (in both red cards last night) but to be sent off for literally doing nothing defeats the purpose of the rule change. The rule change was to prevent double jeopardy.

 

[Big Cat]

Accidental so no foul? Are you being serious? Intent hasn’t been necessary to commit a foul for absolutely donkeys years.

'entirely accidental equating to 'not careles' therefore no foul

 

[Big Cat]

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.

I don't think we're in disagreement. Just depends which side of the coin one looks at. No idea how IFAB will try word any fix to the red card outcome

 

[Big Cat]

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.

Thinking about your comment. At proper grass-roots where participation is an important factor, I too would be looking for any reason not to produce red. Unless under observation.
It would be my mistake that 'i thought the keeper was gonna get there first' or whatever
Fairness does matter to me, if I can get away with it

 

[Kes]

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.

This ^ ^ ^

 

[Kes]

That's not why the law was introduced though was it?
Being kicked isn't making an attempt for the ball, I get that (in both red cards last night) but to be sent off for literally doing nothing defeats the purpose of the rule change. The rule change was to prevent double jeopardy.

Like another member said, you're looking at it entirely the wrong way.

Football referees are not psychologists nor are they telepathic. You keep talking about "intent" as if it's some sort of yardstick with which to apply the LOTG. You have absolutely no chance of knowing what Luiz's intention was. Nobody has but him. There's no emotion mentioned in the laws.

As the referee, your job is to apply the LOTG to what you've seen and make your decision based on that alone.

Luiz was stupid, got too close to an attacker in the penalty area causing contact to occur and got punished correctly for it.

Maybe in your grass roots match of a Sunday morning between Gasworks United and Dog & Duck Rovers you'd just give the penalty (I'd probably do the same) but at the level we're talking here with millions watching on TV and VAR presiding over any KMI, the LOTG are what matters - not your own interpretation of what you think a player intended.

 

[Kent Ref]

As we are on the Wolves game did Leno DOGSO? For me no it was not.

 

[JamesL]

As we are on the Wolves game did Leno DOGSO? For me no it was not.

Easy DOGSO.
Distance to goal 20 yds = tick
Direction, general direction of goal = tick
Number of defenders - none = tick
Likelihood of control - almost certain = tick

 

[es1]

As we are on the Wolves game did Leno DOGSO? For me no it was not.

surely if he doesnt handball it, traore just has an open goal?

 

[Ryanj91]

It was hilarious.

The only thing that would have given him any chance of it not being dogso was his arm was by his body,... But he has clearly motioned to hit it out.... Ridiculous decision on his part. Sums up Arsenal and Arteta

 

[Degnann]

'entirely accidental equating to 'not careles' therefore no foul

Just to play devils advocate here. Is it not possible to accidentally be reckless?

Thinking about your comment. At proper grass-roots where participation is an important factor, I too would be looking for any reason not to produce red. Unless under observation.
It would be my mistake that 'i thought the keeper was gonna get there first' or whatever
Fairness does matter to me, if I can get away with it

Are you saying if no one is observing you and this happens, you are not going to give a red by the current laws in the interest of fairness? By doing that does that not actually mean you are leaning to help one team out by not sending off their player who should be off and therefore not being fair?

 

[JamesL]

Just to play devils advocate here. Is it not possible to accidentally be reckless?

Absolutely it is, and to add to it, also commit SFP/VC accidentally.