Huddersfield defender receives a caution for this challenge on Vardy, in my mind this is not an attempt for the ball and should be red. Thoughts?
https://streamja.com/R2lM
https://streamja.com/R2lM
Last edited:
The foul was a hand on the shoulder + standing on the back of Vardy's leg, no opportunity to play the ball for me.From the pic, red
Its not possible for the defender to get the ball there so it follows it cant be a genuine attempt
Guessing he got a yellow? As I posted last week, far too many refs hiding behind the change in law and giving a token yelow instead of the correct red
From the first pic, I actual thought it related to the gk, now, that looks more yellow than red
I must have missed when the the law makers made this a foulThe foul was a hand on the shoulder
There are a few things the video does add that I thinks help the defender's case - first is that he's clearly partially tripped by his own GK. That doesn't magically turn this into an attempt on the ball of course, but it does mean he hasn't just cynically jumped on the attacker and deliberately taken him down. I also think that despite being tripped, he stretches towards the ball and gets much closer to it than the stills imply, so there's a case for downgrading to yellow having seen the video.
Let's also not forget that the referee is human. Huddersfield are doomed, they're 3-1 down in this game and almost certainly about to let in another one - sending someone off when you don't 100% have to might seem a little bit too much like salt in the wounds?
Use my full quote if you're going to quote me! Context 101Also red for me. But it's not as obvious in real time and with one view.
A yellow in this case looks more like sympethetic refereeing rather than weak refereeing.
I must have missed when the the law makers made this a foul
I mean, I think you're asking a bit much of the ref if you expect him to take the entire history of the DOGSO law into account when making this decision!None of those factors are going to help the ref’s assesment. While cynical was the driver behind the creation of DOGSO (which was originally a kind of SFP), it’s not a part of the Laws—foul and situation (OGSO) are what matters, except for the minor carve out for a legitimate play on the ball. I fully expect the R was dinged for this call—and that it would be a send off with VR.
I mean, I think you're asking a bit much of the ref if you expect him to take the entire history of the DOGSO law into account when making this decision!
Got a video??
Use my full quote if you're going to quote me! Context 101
Alright then. Here is your full quote. It's clear your reference to the vid is unrelated.The foul was a hand on the shoulder + standing on the back of Vardy's leg, no opportunity to play the ball for me.
I forgot to post the vid, it's there now, take a look.
I'm actually not arguing that it isn't DOGSO - although incidentally, if it wasn't Vardy, I think you could make a pretty good case that the angle makes it a very difficult GSO, rather than an obvious one. Given it is Vardy, I think you'd expect him to bury it in his sleep from there and so DOGSO still should apply. So let's not start the whole discussion with you mischaracterising my argument please.No, I’m asking him to apply the actual guidelines for DOGSO. You a trying to justify the decision with things that have nothing to do with whether or not it was DOGSO. (My point about cynical is that while it drove the creation of DOGSO, it has nothing to do with the current LOTG. )
One and only view, pen and no card
no card?
suppose can thank the clouds you least giving the pk !!!
where do you see a genuine attempt for the ball?
I'm actually not arguing that it isn't DOGSO - although incidentally, if it wasn't Vardy, I think you could make a pretty good case that the angle makes it a very difficult GSO, rather than an obvious one. Given it is Vardy, I think you'd expect him to bury it in his sleep from there and so DOGSO still should apply. So let's not start the whole discussion with you mischaracterising my argument please.
However it's in the penalty area - and the criteria for downgrading DOGSO in the PA from red to yellow don't require much. All they require is that the player made an attempt on the ball. I think that once you note that he's off balance when tackling (thanks to his own GK), there's enough of a stretch towards the ball in that final tackle that you can make an argument for downgrading.
Just to clarify with my two esteemed learned posters - even if a genuine attempt for the ball, he's past the GK so has to be DOGSO, so has to be a yellow surely?