A&H

Red Card

Ref1

Ref1

New Member
Just wanted to clarify.
If DOGSO committed inside the penalty area and the offending player makes no attempt to play the ball is this a Red card and Penalty. Asking as a young referee awarded a penalty this week and gave a yellow card.
 
The Referee Store
Ref1 said:
Just wanted to clarify.
If DOGSO committed inside the penalty area and the offending player makes no attempt to play the ball is this a Red card and Penalty. Asking as a young referee awarded a penalty this week and gave a yellow card.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Ref1 said:
Just wanted to clarify.
If DOGSO committed inside the penalty area and the offending player makes no attempt to play the ball is this a Red card and Penalty. Asking as a young referee awarded a penalty this week and gave a yellow card.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, attempting to play the ball is subjective. While you may have thought the offending player made no attempt to play the ball, the referee may have thought he did.
 
you also sadly have the consideration of weak referees using the yellow as a sympthy vote, esp with kids footy or a team 5-0 down or being troublesome

which in fairness is understandable, and in a way could be good game managment, even if by the lotg its incorrect
 
I think the lack of a qualifier for 'attempt' is important. Had this one in a game earlier this season. Keeper brings down attacker in a one on one. Clear DOGSO. Diving to try and stop the ball at the attacker's feet, the attacker is far too quick for him, so he's not got particularly close to the ball.

A desperate attempt to make the save - yes
A good attempt, definitely not
A realistic attempt, arguably not & he'd have been better trying to stand up and block, but not relevant.

It's still an attempt, so YC. For a tackle, I'm needing to be sure in my own mind there is no attempt to go RC.
In contrast to some other law changes, the double jeopardy thing does seem to have made its way into the minds of players & managers, so it's also helpfully usually what's expected
 
Quarryref said:
I think the lack of a qualifier for 'attempt' is important. Had this one in a game earlier this season. Keeper brings down attacker in a one on one. Clear DOGSO. Diving to try and stop the ball at the attacker's feet, the attacker is far too quick for him, so he's not got particularly close to the ball.

A desperate attempt to make the save - yes
A good attempt, definitely not
A realistic attempt, arguably not & he'd have been better trying to stand up and block, but not relevant.

It's still an attempt, so YC. For a tackle, I'm needing to be sure in my own mind there is no attempt to go RC.
In contrast to some other law changes, the double jeopardy thing does seem to have made its way into the minds of players & managers, so it's also helpfully usually what's expected
Click to expand...

that reads like a red, " no possibility of playing the ball"
by saying he has not got particulary close to the ball, without seeing it of course, it stinks of a red and ( based purely on the words used, not you personally) puts you in the category i typed pre your post, weak.
 
Anubis said:
that reads like a red, " no possibility of playing the ball"
by saying he has not got particulary close to the ball, without seeing it of course, it stinks of a red and ( based purely on the words used, not you personally) puts you in the category i typed pre your post, weak.
Click to expand...
That's the exact misunderstanding of the law that @JamesL was attempting to clarify with his "pedantic" correction.

Was he going for the ball? Then a downgrade to yellow is correct - regardless of if he could actually have got to it or not. Maintaining the red card is only correct if ITOOTR, it wasn't even an attempt to play the ball.
 
GraemeS said:
That's the exact misunderstanding of the law that @JamesL was attempting to clarify with his "pedantic" correction.

Was he going for the ball? Then a downgrade to yellow is correct - regardless of if he could actually have got to it or not. Maintaining the red card is only correct if ITOOTR, it wasn't even an attempt to play the ball.
Click to expand...

not read all posts, sounds like a red, i would be issuing a red, i would want a red when observing

a yc sounds like a token gesture for at least making any effort to do anything

surely outwith the truly outrageous 99 out of 100 gk attempts would come in the ' i was going for the ball" file

what we must consider tho, is, our take on, where you? realistically?

rather than his.

think of it like deliberate handball, by its wording only the player will truly know if it was deliberate, yet its us who need judge the intent.
same " going for the ball". Its a given the gk be going for the ball, ( bar the most blatent cementing of an opponent), thus next to no reds should be issued.
 
Anubis said:
not read all posts, sounds like a red, i would be issuing a red, i would want a red when observing

a yc sounds like a token gesture for at least making any effort to do anything

surely outwith the truly outrageous 99 out of 100 gk attempts would come in the ' i was going for the ball" file

what we must consider tho, is, our take on, where you? realistically?

rather than his.

think of it like deliberate handball, by its wording only the player will truly know if it was deliberate, yet its us who need judge the intent.
same " going for the ball". Its a given the gk be going for the ball, ( bar the most blatent cementing of an opponent), thus next to no reds should be issued.
Click to expand...
You've also clearly failed to read the post you initially replied to then!

Diving to try and stop the ball at the attacker's feet
Click to expand...

That was in the initial description of the incident from the referee who made the call. And any referee who understands this law should read that and then immediately agree that based on the opinion of the referee in this situation, YC is correct.
 
I'll say this:
An attempt requires a full intention, otherwise it is not an attempt.

Of course, the issue over divining intention still rears its head because only in the most obvious of circumstances do we know a player does or does not intend a particular result.
 
GraemeS said:
You've also clearly failed to read the post you initially replied to then!



That was in the initial description of the incident from the referee who made the call. And any referee who understands this law should read that and then immediately agree that based on the opinion of the referee in this situation, YC is correct.
Click to expand...

by your thinking, the gk does not need to get anywhere near the ball, merely make an attempt to do so

Wont even begin to describe how ridiculous that is.
 
Anubis said:
by your thinking, the gk does not need to get anywhere near the ball, merely make an attempt to do so

Wont even begin to describe how ridiculous that is.
Click to expand...
It's not his thinking. It's what the law says.
 
Anubis said:
by your thinking, the gk does not need to get anywhere near the ball, merely make an attempt to do so

Wont even begin to describe how ridiculous that is.
Click to expand...
At no point am I saying that the law is well-judged or sensible. But it is clear. If the referee thinks the defender/GK has attempted to get the ball, they should only be issuing yellow, even if the judgement on if that attempt is realistic or not was flawed.

If, as you claim, you're being paid to teach other referees, I'd strongly recommend learning the law properly first. We can have disagreements on implementation in a real match situation as per the other thread, but this is a straightforward right/wrong question of law and you should know the right answer if you're in the position you say you're in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top