Bang on decision
Open Age Penalty Clip
- Thread starter They're laws not rules
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Pushing at all is outside the caution: “ in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.
You got this right. No arguments on that.
However, I would have given the defender benefit of the doubt, as the push was minimum, striker went over super easy and you could have said it was expected contact. I'd say more the defender trying to put him off with contact.
Still a pen, just wouldn't have gone red personally.
Last edited:
Which isn't really fair on the next referee that does apply law and then gets grief because you chose to manage it. Not sure how you can say it was definitely correct but you wouldn't send off? Not having a go, rather interested in thought process behind this.
The screenshots below is the moment of contact. I would say the ball is in a playable position and they are shoulder-to-shoulder. When the striker falls, he turns his back to the defender, making it look like it was in the back.
What the screenshot doesn't show is the speed at which the defender went in, which was careless to me. The last screenshot clearly shows the defender lunging his right foot in an attempt to play the ball.
Difficult on the spot decision. The defender extending his arm afterwards puts the ref in a difficult spot. Football is subjective. So I don't think OP is objectively wrong and I can see an argument for a red. Just not for me.
I'd love to see you having that discussion with an observer after the gameThe screenshots below is the moment of contact. I would say the ball is in a playable position and they are shoulder-to-shoulder. When the striker falls, he turns his back to the defender, making it look like it was in the back.
What the screenshot doesn't show is the speed at which the defender went in, which was careless to me. The last screenshot clearly shows the defender lunging his right foot in an attempt to play the ball.
Difficult on the spot decision. The defender extending his arm afterwards puts the ref in a difficult spot. Football is subjective. So I don't think OP is objectively wrong and I can see an argument for a red. Just not for me.
View attachment 7543View attachment 7544View attachment 7545
It certainly wasn't shoulder to shoulder, it was a clear push with an extended arm.
one
RefChat Addict
The screenshots below is the moment of contact. I would say the ball is in a playable position and they are shoulder-to-shoulder. When the striker falls, he turns his back to the defender, making it look like it was in the back.
What the screenshot doesn't show is the speed at which the defender went in, which was careless to me. The last screenshot clearly shows the defender lunging his right foot in an attempt to play the ball.
Difficult on the spot decision. The defender extending his arm afterwards puts the ref in a difficult spot. Football is subjective. So I don't think OP is objectively wrong and I can see an argument for a red. Just not for me.
View attachment 7543View attachment 7544View attachment 7545
Your original post is saying it's a pen. That means you think it's a foul. Every thing else you are saying to justify it's not a red indicates it's not a foul.
- Push was minimum,
- stiker went down easy,
- shoulder to shoulder, -
- striker made it look like a push,
Then you say the speed made it careless. Speed is usually a consideration when determining red for SFP which we all agree this is not. If you think this is a foul, what is the foul for (careless for what)?
What sounds to me you (possibly subconsciously) feel if you give the foul it's a red. And you are not sure if this is a foul or not so you are going with the compromise of giving the foul but not the red.
I only watched the clip once. We all only get one view!
It has been an interesting clip to stimulate discussion about what constitutes 'challenging for the ball'. I don't think the dismissal decision is as binary as some are making out as I recall a degree of 'unintended collision' involved. I think @OldNavyRef is justified in debating the decision because I understood IFAB's intention was to reduce the occurrence of double jeopardy wherever plausible. However, I accept that a push 'probably' usurped any notion of collision or challenge for the ball on this occasion
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
Yeah, fair enough in terms of it being non binary and subjective. And no issue with debating a decision either way. If you make a argument for a case, it would have to be supportable in law. And for subjective decisions, to use a VAR term, the case put forward in the debate should not be clearly and obviously wrong.
My point is the argument put forward by @OldNavyRef is somewhat contradictory and on some points not supported by lotg. It may be just the way he has expanded it or I have read it.
The extended arm comes out after the contact is made. The screenshots I posted aren't manipulated or scewed to make it look different. He 100% leads with his shoulder. Watch the clip on slow speed. The arm extension happens after the contact.I'd love to see you having that discussion with an observer after the game
It certainly wasn't shoulder to shoulder, it was a clear push with an extended arm.
So it was 100% shoulder to shoulder. Unless you're saying I messed with the screenshots.
Happy to be proven wrong.
But whether shoulder or arm is neither here nor there. This is the law text ...
the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.
Pushing with the shoulder is still pushing, there was no challenge for the ball.
We have hit the crux of our issue. You consider it pushing. I do not. Lets try not to go around in circles too much.
I would consider the shoulder barge we witnessed a challenge. I understand he extended his arm after. So if you want to say that therefore means it must have been a push. That's fine. You can do that. That is the beauty of the subjectiveness of football.
But I am arguing he got next to the defender, then charged him with his shoulder.
Challenge:
An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball. [The third screenshot I posted, you have to admit, the player is really close to the ball, reaching for it].
Charge:
Physical challenge against an opponent, usually using the shoulder and upper arm (which is kept close to the body).
Therefore I think it falls under the careless, reckless excessive criteria.
I say it was careless. As if that happened in the midfield, or to a defender. I am not booking anyone. However, it appears to be DOGSO. So yellow and a penalty is my decision. Not because I hate the referee who has to do a job next week and not because I hate the laws.
@one read the above as it is relevant to half the stuff you keep replying too.
But you have already said that you thought the original decision was correct?
So I have no idea why you are now trying to argue that it wasn't?
Subjectively.
What are you doing Rusty. Are you actually discussing this with me, what I think. Or just cherry picking random things to be right?
You are a complex man.
There is nothing complex about it. You started your posting by saying the decision was absolutely correct, but then said you wouldn't red card for it. That's factual based on what you have posted.
= Charge
Rusty, give the man a break. He may not have reasoned his argument perfectly but this is a subjective discussion and your opinion is not conclusive
I happen to agree this just about meets the criteria for 'push', but our Navy friend has a reasonable opinion
I'm just questioning the logic, as indeed others have. The fact I am doing that doesn't make me a "complex man", so I am obviously going to reply to challenge that.
Pretty sure if that video gets shown at an L3 seminar 100% of the referees are going to say DOGSO. Likewise I don't think many observers would support anything other than DOGSO.
No point discussing this further if you and all the level 3s in the country and many observers agree with you.
Lets draw a line under it and move on.
