The Ref Stop

Open Age Penalty Clip

The Ref Stop
They're laws not rules said:
Had this incident at the weekend. Interested in views as away club were adamant I was wrong. (pen was “soft” and red was wrong apparently)

Link (should start at correct time)

I gave a PK and a DOGSO RED for no genuine attempt to play the ball
Click to expand...
Think thats a spot on decision myself. The push is above the higher threshold for penalty (if not the attacker has done a great job).
Ticks all the boxes for a DOGSO and is not an attempt or challenge so a red card is the right outcome.
 
They're laws not rules said:
Had this incident at the weekend. Interested in views as away club were adamant I was wrong. (pen was “soft” and red was wrong apparently)

Link (should start at correct time)

I gave a PK and a DOGSO RED for no genuine attempt to play the ball
Click to expand...
I think you made the right call. The attacker slows slightly, presumably as he wishes to shoot or control the ball better.

That doesn’t give the defender the right to clatter through the back of him.
 
The obvious extended arm makes it a very easy decision for me.

Had the defender just bumped into him, it might be a harder sell, but there's a very obvious push.
 
They're laws not rules said:
Had this incident at the weekend. Interested in views as away club were adamant I was wrong. (pen was “soft” and red was wrong apparently)

Link (should start at correct time)

I gave a PK and a DOGSO RED for no genuine attempt to play the ball
Click to expand...
Agree with others as well.

Only thing to add, the laws don't use the word "genuine" so I would refrain from using as well. Simply no attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball.
 
one said:
Agree with others as well.

Only thing to add, the laws don't use the word "genuine" so I would refrain from using as well. Simply no attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20240902-181614.png
Not entirely wrong as the explanation when the DOGSO/Pk yellow was introduced does talk about "genuine"
You know my thoughts on the explanations, I've aired them enough times.
Here is an example, people still use genuine because that's what they learnt/were taught when the law changed. The part that was entered into the laws themselves didn't include the word and now we pick each other up for saying genuine when it is now not in the laws, despite it being present in the explanation and therefore the teaching!
 
JamesL said:
View attachment 7530
Not entirely wrong as the explanation when the DOGSO/Pk yellow was introduced does talk about "genuine"
You know my thoughts on the explanations, I've aired them enough times.
Here is an example, people still use genuine because that's what they learnt/were taught when the law changed. The part that was entered into the laws themselves didn't include the word and now we pick each other up for saying genuine when it is now not in the laws, despite it being present in the explanation and therefore the teaching!
Click to expand...
We have had this discussion before. The word was also in the circular before that. But it is not in the current law. Just like the word "far" is not in the current law for exceeding force, in defining excessive force.

The reason I brought it up is so that we can avoid sticky situations.
Player: I attempted to play the ball
Referee: yes but it wasn't genuine

Is this a red card or a yellow card in a DOGSO?
 
one said:
We have had this discussion before. The word was also in the circular before that. But it is not in the current law. Just like the word "far" is not in the current law for exceeding force, in defining excessive force.

The reason I brought it up is so that we can avoid sticky situations.
Player: I attempted to play the ball
Referee: yes but it wasn't genuine

Is this a red card or a yellow card in a DOGSO?
Click to expand...
Slightly different in that "far" was actually in the law.

Genuine has never been in the law itself.
Back to my issue with "explanations"

I agree we shouldn't use it as it isn't in law, but if you know the history, it's understandable why people do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
JamesL said:
Slightly different in that "far" was actually in the law.

Genuine has never been in the law itself.
Back to my issue with "explanations"

I agree we shouldn't use it as it isn't in law, but if you know the history, it's understandable why people do.
Click to expand...
Oh I understood why the OP used it. But my advice still stands ☺️
 
Its unfortunately a term still used in every FA training seminar, it's even added in when they're presenting of a screen with the actual laws of the game on.
 
'the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball'

Consistent with the overall desire to keep players on the FOP, I got the impression IFAB only wanted a player dismissed for DOGSO for egregious USB
Regarding the clip in @They're laws not rules OP
I'm not convinced this meets the new higher bar for a dismissal. Yes, it's a push, but the offender is merely 'careless' when challenging the opponent and did not shove the player with questionable intent
However, no doubt most observers would lean towards the thoughts expressed above and would rather see red as the push was with the arm as opposed to barging upper body contact
 
Big Cat said:
'the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball'

Consistent with the overall desire to keep players on the FOP, I got the impression IFAB only wanted a player dismissed for DOGSO for egregious USB
Regarding the clip in @They're laws not rules OP
I'm not convinced this meets the new higher bar for a dismissal. Yes, it's a push, but the offender is merely 'careless' when challenging the opponent and did not shove the player with questionable intent
However, no doubt most observers would lean towards the thoughts expressed above and would rather see red as the push was with the arm as opposed to barging upper body contact
Click to expand...
The challenge part was brought in because every upper body challenge was being deemed a send off. The law changed to recognise, and be consistent with the rest of law, that you can challenge fairly using the upper body.
In all versions of the law this would/should/could be considered as sending off offence
 
JamesL said:
The challenge part was brought in because every upper body challenge was being deemed a send off. The law changed to recognise, and be consistent with the rest of law, that you can challenge fairly using the upper body.
In all versions of the law this would/should/could be considered as sending off offence
Click to expand...
Agree, if he'd just barged into him I'd probably support a caution, especially as the attacker slightly slowed down. But the extended arm clearly pushing him over removes any wiggle room for me, there is no possible way that can be described as an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball. The defender has absolutely zero interest in the ball, he knows that a goal is imminent so just takes the attacker out.
 
RustyRef said:
The defender has absolutely zero interest in the ball, he knows that a goal is imminent so just takes the attacker out.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this telepathy bit, but I do accept that pushing with an outstretched arm is beyond the intent of the Law clarification.
In a sense, I'm glad the clip was posted because it means I've now thought about the nuances of 'challenging for the ball' before I'm faced with a similar DOGSO. I would've been looking for what I termed 'egregious USB', which in hindsight is not quite pitched right
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
I don't agree with this telepathy bit, but I do accept that pushing with an outstretched arm is beyond the intent of the Law clarification.
In a sense, I'm glad the clip was posted because it means I've now thought about the nuances of 'challenging for the ball' before I'm faced with a similar DOGSO. I would've been looking for what I termed 'egregious USB', which in hindsight is not quite pitched right
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree that reading a player's intentions is dangerous grounds to be getting into, there are sometimes when you have to draw a conclusion. Especially with the new DOGSO law as the referee needs to determine if there was an attempt to play or a challenge for the ball, and that almost forces us to look at the defender's intentions.
 
RustyRef said:
Whilst I agree that reading a player's intentions is dangerous grounds to be getting into, there are sometimes when you have to draw a conclusion. Especially with the new DOGSO law as the referee needs to determine if there was an attempt to play or a challenge for the ball, and that almost forces us to look at the defender's intentions.
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement with your point that this is a DOGSO red card (the unanimous viewpoint)
You can let go now!!!
 
Big Cat said:
I'm in agreement with your point that this is a DOGSO red card (the unanimous viewpoint)
You can let go now!!!
Click to expand...
I was just explaining why I thought the new law almost forces referees to take a player's intent into account. Not sure I can let go of something I haven't got hold of 🤷‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top