A&H

Red Card

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.
Attempt is the important word. Not pretending to attempt. My point was an ill-advised attempt is still an attempt and therefore YC - which is the situation I described.

If I had thought he mowed him down without making any attempt, it would have been red.
 
The Referee Store
Attempt is the important word. Not pretending to attempt. My point was an ill-advised attempt is still an attempt and therefore YC - which is the situation I described.

If I had thought he mowed him down without making any attempt, it would have been red.


No possibility of playing ball is a red tho.

" but ref, i did try".

is still a red

we use our judgement to decide whether he had a chance of playing the ball.
to merely make an attempt, at a ball he could not get to, is a red, not a yellow.
 
No possibility of playing ball is a red tho.

" but ref, i did try".

is still a red

we use our judgement to decide whether he had a chance of playing the ball.
to merely make an attempt, at a ball he could not get to, is a red, not a yellow.
But as as been previously pointed out to you, in the incident being discussed, the referee has judged there to be an intent. That's all that is required - your attempts to add extra conditions to justify your incorrect original assertion are wrong in law. You've now been told this multiple times and are continuing to try and perpetuate an incorrect way of thinking about this.
 
But as as been previously pointed out to you, in the incident being discussed, the referee has judged there to be an intent. That's all that is required - your attempts to add extra conditions to justify your incorrect original assertion are wrong in law. You've now been told this multiple times and are continuing to try and perpetuate an incorrect way of thinking about this.

you cant have intent to play a ball you cant possibly win

the two dont intertwine.

As per the other post, lets disagree and move on. You spread your giospel, I will spread mine.
am not risking sanction by squabbling all day.
 
you cant have intent to play a ball you cant possibly win

the two dont intertwine.

As per the other post, lets disagree and move on. You spread your giospel, I will spread mine.
am not risking sanction by squabbling all day.

I think you are both debating nothing here. You are both right but you just need to join up in the middle.

If its an attempt to play the ball it is a yellow card. In all other cases, pushing pulling, no possibility to play the ball it's a red.
 
you cant have intent to play a ball you cant possibly win

the two dont intertwine.

As per the other post, lets disagree and move on. You spread your giospel, I will spread mine.
am not risking sanction by squabbling all day.
You're wrong in law and you've been told so by multiple posters. Again, this forum is an educational resource for a lot of referees, so it's important to make it clear that this is not "competing opinions", this is simply an incorrect reading of the law.

If you're attempting to play the ball, it doesn't matter if that attempt was always going to be futile - it is an attempt and so the sanction is downgraded to a YC. Again, I'm not arguing it makes intuitive sense and it's not how I would have written the law, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer here.
 
I think you are both debating nothing here. You are both right but you just need to join up in the middle.

If its an attempt to play the ball it is a yellow card. In all other cases, pushing pulling, no possibility to play the ball it's a red.
Semantically worlds apart. In reality, probably making the same decision on 99% of instances
 
You're wrong in law and you've been told so by multiple posters. Again, this forum is an educational resource for a lot of referees, so it's important to make it clear that this is not "competing opinions", this is simply an incorrect reading of the law.

If you're attempting to play the ball, it doesn't matter if that attempt was always going to be futile - it is an attempt and so the sanction is downgraded to a YC. Again, I'm not arguing it makes intuitive sense and it's not how I would have written the law, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a right and a wrong answer here.
I don't agree that he is so wrong. A futile thrust in the direction of the ball may not be found ITOTR to be an attempt.

Anubis seems to be describing evidence he uses to come to a conclusion. It is not so much an expression of the law, then an expression that he would prefer to err on the side of red and takes more than some others to be satisfied if 'attempt'.
Nothing wrong with drawing a line
 
I don't agree that he is so wrong. A futile thrust in the direction of the ball may not be found ITOTR to be an attempt.

Anubis seems to be describing evidence he uses to come to a conclusion. It is not so much an expression of the law, then an expression that he would prefer to err on the side of red and takes more than some others to be satisfied if 'attempt'.
Nothing wrong with drawing a line
But as has been pointed out, he's specifically disputing an incident described in a previous post. A description that includes the line "Diving to try and stop the ball at the attacker's feet". That should be sufficient to result in a downgrade to YC - the fact he seems to think it isn't shows a misunderstanding of the law.
 
I think it we relate to the OP the question is, was the ball there to be won? If the answer is yes the keeper has attempted to play it. Downgrade to yellow.

There will be few instances of keeper no possibility to play the ball and in many cases you'll have to be there to make the call.

What Anubis is saying isn't entirely incorrect in law the law lists no possibility to play the ball as a non downgrade dogso offence so if the referee so it would be more a misapplication than incorrect and still subject to opinion of referee.
 
He didn't say 'that equals red'. He said 'it stinks of red' - meaning that in the scenario described he would reject concluding that the defender had attempted to play the ball. It's just awkwardly worded.

And then we all get our back up because he tosses in some rather crass ad hominem description of his fellow referee's character - to wit, 'weak' - as in most of his other posts.

I think it pays on this forum to take all things said as slightly less than literal, which is difficult because we purport to be discussing laws but are often discussing technique in the same breath.
 
He didn't say 'that equals red'. He said 'it stinks of red' - meaning that in the scenario described he would reject concluding that the defender had attempted to play the ball. It's just awkwardly worded.

And then we all get our back up because he tosses in some rather crass ad hominem description of his fellow referee's character - to wit, 'weak' - as in most of his other posts.

I think it pays on this forum to take all things said as slightly less than literal, which is difficult because we purport to be discussing laws but are often discussing technique in the same breath.
This is all very fair. As you point out, he responds to a poster saying they went yellow with the implication that this decision was endemic of weak refereeing. I happen to agree with the decision - hence as a reader, I am also implied to be a weak referee. And all of that based on some (at best) very shaky understanding of the law in question - it can't be a surprise that a response is generated.

And why? Seemingly with the objective of arguing it a few times, and then trying to take the moral high ground and/or patronisingly explain that he has taught referees in the past so must be listened to now on all matters. I know I keep falling for it, but the classic combination of "here's some bad advice" and "I am super-important and must be listened to" is too difficult for me to resist responding to!
 
This is all very fair. As you point out, he responds to a poster saying they went yellow with the implication that this decision was endemic of weak refereeing. I happen to agree with the decision - hence as a reader, I am also implied to be a weak referee. And all of that based on some (at best) very shaky understanding of the law in question - it can't be a surprise that a response is generated.

And why? Seemingly with the objective of arguing it a few times, and then trying to take the moral high ground and/or patronisingly explain that he has taught referees in the past so must be listened to now on all matters. I know I keep falling for it, but the classic combination of "here's some bad advice" and "I am super-important and must be listened to" is too difficult for me to resist responding to!

you can simply remove your facility to observe the bad advice....

that aside, try picture this, in the absence of being able to draw a picture

in the simpliest terms

central, no defenders, gk on the 6, striker on the pk spot
gk comes running out, starts his dive, striker knocks ball to side
gk has made his attempt, if we take it in black and white.
however the ball is 2/3 yards to the side, he is nowhere near it, brings down striker
( for clarity, a foul, not sfp)

it can only be a red card.

the word missing from the lotg yet used ( again regional variations apply), is, genuine. Add or subtract that word from your thinking on the original incident and you arrive at the correect decision,
 
you can simply remove your facility to observe the bad advice....

that aside, try picture this, in the absence of being able to draw a picture

in the simpliest terms

central, no defenders, gk on the 6, striker on the pk spot
gk comes running out, starts his dive, striker knocks ball to side
gk has made his attempt, if we take it in black and white.
however the ball is 2/3 yards to the side, he is nowhere near it, brings down striker
( for clarity, a foul, not sfp)

it can only be a red card.

the word missing from the lotg yet used ( again regional variations apply), is, genuine. Add or subtract that word from your thinking on the original incident and you arrive at the correect decision,
But "genuine" isn't in the law. Sure, we can all make up laws and then say the decision matches our invention, but that's irrelevant. The question is, was he diving at the ball or at the player?

If the latter then sure, red.

If the former, then even if it's massively mistimed or misjudged, it's yellow. Doesn't matter where the ball ends up or where it is by the time the contact occurs, if the referee judges the intent is to try and claim the ball then it means the LOTG provision of being an attempt on the ball, and requires the downgrade.

And as I've said multiple times in this thread, that is the opinion of the referee in the post where you unnecessarily declared them weak - so based on that expressed opinion, the downgrade is correct rather than weak.
 
you can simply remove your facility to observe the bad advice....

that aside, try picture this, in the absence of being able to draw a picture

in the simpliest terms

central, no defenders, gk on the 6, striker on the pk spot
gk comes running out, starts his dive, striker knocks ball to side
gk has made his attempt, if we take it in black and white.
however the ball is 2/3 yards to the side, he is nowhere near it, brings down striker
( for clarity, a foul, not sfp)

it can only be a red card.

the word missing from the lotg yet used ( again regional variations apply), is, genuine. Add or subtract that word from your thinking on the original incident and you arrive at the correect decision,
For the avoidance of doubt, we are now not talking about the incident I described that kicked this debate off.

There is a question raised by this new scenario about when the point of 'no possibility to play the ball' (lifted verbatim from LOTG) is judged, but I think this one has run its course, so I'm not going there.
 
Last edited:
If the former, then even if it's massively mistimed or misjudged, it's yellow. Doesn't matter where the ball ends up or where it is by the time the contact occurs, if the referee judges the intent is to try and claim the ball then it means the LOTG provision of being an attempt on the ball, and requires the downgrade.
Providing that in the opinion of the referee there was a possibility to play it.
 
Providing that in the opinion of the referee there was a possibility to play it.
OK, but bear in mind that "play" is defined in the glossary as "action which makes contact with the ball". There's no requirement for a possibility of a legal play on the ball, so the downgrade should be applied if the ball is basically anywhere close to being in reach of the GK at any point in the tackling process, up to and including if the GK was always going to have to go through the attacker to get to the ball.

Was there any point at which the GK could reasonably think that he might be able to get to the ball? Has he made an action that could reasonably be judged as probably going for the ball? Then downgrade. It's an extremely open-ended provision, and that is surely by design. It's not for us to add artificial limits or conditions as to when this downgrade can be used.

And more relevantly to this thread, it's not on us to insult other referees who have quite rightly applied a reasonable judgement in these situations.
 
OK, but bear in mind that "play" is defined in the glossary as "action which makes contact with the ball". There's no requirement for a possibility of a legal play on the ball, so the downgrade should be applied if the ball is basically anywhere close to being in reach of the GK at any point in the tackling process, up to and including if the GK was always going to have to go through the attacker to get to the ball.

Was there any point at which the GK could reasonably think that he might be able to get to the ball? Has he made an action that could reasonably be judged as probably going for the ball? Then downgrade. It's an extremely open-ended provision, and that is surely by design. It's not for us to add artificial limits or conditions as to when this downgrade can be used.

And more relevantly to this thread, it's not on us to insult other referees who have quite rightly applied a reasonable judgement in these situations.
I agree with you. As above in my earlier psot. Was the ball there to be won? Yes. Then so long as there was an attempt to play it all good. If the ball is a significant distance away, that becomes less "playable" and of course the possibility to do so.

Basically each case must be taken on its own merit.
 
you can simply remove your facility to observe the bad advice....

that aside, try picture this, in the absence of being able to draw a picture

in the simpliest terms

central, no defenders, gk on the 6, striker on the pk spot
gk comes running out, starts his dive, striker knocks ball to side
gk has made his attempt, if we take it in black and white.
however the ball is 2/3 yards to the side, he is nowhere near it, brings down striker
( for clarity, a foul, not sfp)

it can only be a red card.

the word missing from the lotg yet used ( again regional variations apply), is, genuine. Add or subtract that word from your thinking on the original incident and you arrive at the correect decision,
Interesting, very nearly exactly that happend here..... Blackpool v QPR - yellow given - probably lack of control by attacker and direction of play saved the GK here?

https://www.qpr.co.uk/videos/highlights/highlights-blackpool-1-qpr-1-061121/ - 5 minutes in btw
 
Back
Top