The Ref Stop

2026 Potential Law Changes

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
Why would we want to remove any sanction to DOGSO if a goal scores? We already softened it for advantage applied. DOGSO was put in to weed out cynical fouls that make the game ugly. Why do we want a lottery to give cynical play a get out of jail free card? Horrible idea IMO.
 
socal lurker said:
Why would we want to remove any sanction to DOGSO if a goal scores? We already softened it for advantage applied. DOGSO was put in to weed out cynical fouls that make the game ugly. Why do we want a lottery to give cynical play a get out of jail free card? Horrible idea IMO.
Click to expand...
As well as adding an extra consideration for all officials. Lets not forget, Bob, 70 years old refereeing from the centre circle to help out because nobody else wants to on a sunday afternoon is also supposed to remember and apply the same laws we are. Unnecessary.
 
socal lurker said:
Why would we want to remove any sanction to DOGSO if a goal scores? We already softened it for advantage applied. DOGSO was put in to weed out cynical fouls that make the game ugly. Why do we want a lottery to give cynical play a get out of jail free card? Horrible idea IMO.
Click to expand...
Can still do 'em for reckless ;)
 
Archer said:
Or those cute little man-bras that tell 'em that they ran around a bit.
Click to expand...
I think they're already in LOTG under Electronic performance and tracking systems (EPTS). But my daughter was very confused as to why the players were wearing crop tops like her when she came to watch.
 
RefereeX said:
I find it hard to see this referencing jewellery. I'm thinking more things like whoop bands, but time will tell.
Click to expand...
Which currently fall under jewellery. I am more interested how (if) they are going to define them. Wait and see.
 
one said:
Which currently fall under jewellery. I am more interested how (if) they are going to define them. Wait and see.
Click to expand...
Yeah of course. I meant don’t evisage Pat Butcher suddenly being able to play even if she tapes hear earrings up. (Probably a niche English comment tbf)
 
socal lurker said:
Why would we want to remove any sanction to DOGSO if a goal scores? We already softened it for advantage applied. DOGSO was put in to weed out cynical fouls that make the game ugly. Why do we want a lottery to give cynical play a get out of jail free card? Horrible idea IMO.
Click to expand...

I think if they score a goal cards should be staying in your pocket (unless reckless). I would hate to be giving someone a 2nd caution for carelessly trying to prevent a goal that was scored.

For me that's overkill and busy. I doubt many people want to be in the situation where they feel forced to do that.

Someone tried to stop a goal, it didn't work. Play on.
 
I am ok with no cards if the foul was a 'footballing' foul. But if pulling/pushing etc there has to be a sanction.

The sanction is not just a punishment but also a deterrent. If there is a GSO in the 90th minute for a winning goal then pulling the attacker is a no lose situation for a defender. If they score, not even a caution. If they dont, you achieve your goal and taking one for the team. The caution is for the unsporting act rather than the attempted dogso.

In addition, there are still many unsuccessful 'attemp' acts that are ponished outside of a dogso situation.
 
Last edited:
RefereeX said:
But if we aren’t careful we’re gonna end up with the need for a table for outcomes on dogso smilar to penalty kicks 🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...

And largely because back when it started R’s wouldn’t give the reds. The original concept of DOGSO was the professional foul—calculated fouls to prevent goals. But since refs wouldn’t give the cards, we got the 4 Ds that apply to any foul. So the “honest” foul became equally the send off. And it is that “honest” foul issue that has raised all of the gutting of DOGSO. I really wish we could find a way to go back to punishing the cynical foul. But that is very much a fudment call, and the Game more and more wants all calls to be as black and white as as possible.
 
Referee body cams have now been trialled since Jan 2021. Exactly 5 years!

Could we please have the option to use one in grass roots football?!?!?
 
socal lurker said:
Why would we want to remove any sanction to DOGSO if a goal scores? We already softened it for advantage applied. DOGSO was put in to weed out cynical fouls that make the game ugly. Why do we want a lottery to give cynical play a get out of jail free card? Horrible idea IMO.
Click to expand...
I think they saw the video of my double DOGSO advantage goal - followed by no cards 🫣 - and realised I was right!
 
DJIC said:
Referee body cams have now been trialled since Jan 2021. Exactly 5 years!

Could we please have the option to use one in grass roots football?!?!?
Click to expand...
The period since Jan 2021 includes Covid, but I get your point, though the trials have been extended to other county FA’s/competitions & likely to grow further, perhaps to all, though with the costs involved it’s perhaps not a surprise the FA had to roll them out over a period of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top