The Ref Stop

6 minute VAR delay and...

The Ref Stop
How odd...

I would love to know what the reasoning for it is though since that really doesn't look like an attempt to play the ball at all to be honest...
 
I think it's a yellow. He attempted a fair shoulder to shoulder charge and ended up fouling his opponent with a careless charge. This wasn't a push or a pull.

But you make good points about this maybe not being clear and obvious and taking so much time.
 
This is DOGSO. Distance to ball - yes, he is going to keep it, distance to goal - very close, direction - right at the goal (about to see a shot), defenders - only the keeper to beat. The foul is a charge in the back or a push in the back depending on how you look at it. I see it as a charge. Bottom line in my opinion is there is no chance to play this ball. Attacker is well behind the defense and puts his body between the defender and the ball. The defender actually looks at the ball then back to the attacker before charing him from behind. I agree with One. Some may see this as a legitimate challenge but I do not (all a matter of opinion). The issue is this is in no way a clear and obvious error. The most troubling is not the length of the review but the body language that is going on. It visually appears that the CR is explaining his rationale or possibly disagreeing with someone while he is talking over the headset. He could just be someone who talks with his hands but the optics are terrible. Based upon the head motion of the VAR, it looks to be some kind of discussion/debate between the two. I would love to hear the audio
 
santa sangria said:
Is a shoulder charge, whether fair or not, an attempt to play the ball?
Click to expand...
A fair shoulder charge is a legal challenge for space within playing distance of the ball. It is generally shoulder to shoulder, foot on the ground (jumping foul if not), and arm not extended (push otherwise). Although not a play of the ball, BUT if done correctly it is a legal challenge and not a foul. His intent or attempt to challenge fairly (which I don't think he did) is irrelevant. The fact is the charge was a foul charge into the back. No different than the parents of the young kids saying "he didn't mean to trip him". Doesn't matter. The result is a trip. Same here. I do not believe this is a legitimate attempt to play the ball
 
To me, this is DOGSO and an obvious red card. That's how we would handle it in Belgium - no VAR needed.

EDIT: Let's not forget about the fact that there's no 'right' or 'only' solution to these types of situations. There are many possibilities.
 
Hmm. The relevant paragraph:
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own
penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence
was an attempt to play 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.
Click to expand...
So, I'd suggest to @Hoosier Ref that actually, we do need to consider the intent of the player here as if he was making a legitimate attempt on the ball, yellow would be the correct decision. Bizarrely, if we think he was making a deliberate charge on the attacker, or tried to pull out and make no challenge with the contact being accidental, red is the right answer. Where as the "middle ground" option of him making an attempt on the ball and getting it wrong is the only way that yellow is correct.

My instinct on first viewing was that the attacker slowed down and caused the defender to run into him - on re-watching, I think you can see the defender "lean" in a way that makes me think a deliberate charge was being attempted. Either way, red has to be the right answer, as there was never a legitimate attempt on the ball.
 
... as @GraemeS had highlighted by quoting the law... anyone considering “downgrading” this to yellow needs to read the law. It’s quite clear with examples and “all other circumstances”. An illegal shoulder charge DOGSO-r in the box can’t be downgraded to yellow.
 
santa sangria said:
... as @GraemeS had highlighted by quoting the law... anyone considering “downgrading” this to yellow needs to read the law. It’s quite clear with examples and “all other circumstances”. An illegal shoulder charge DOGSO-r in the box can’t be downgraded to yellow.
Click to expand...
That leave the question, with charge being a common act in football, why isn't it included in the 'e.g.' section of the quoted law by @GraemeS ?

An earlier (15-16) definition of charging made it clear it is not "an attempt to play the ball" (its challenge for space), hence no downgrading of DOGSO-red.
1533465807394.png

However the current definition does not make that distinction.
1533465848002.png
 
It is impossible to play the ball legally with your arm, unless by accident, thus a charge, deemed to be careless or reckless + DOGSO should be a red card.

The clip, easy red card. It's not even a legal charge, given that, from my viewing the foul appears to be a charge/push into the attacking players back. Although the legality of the charge has no bearing on my decision given my opening statement.
 
An interesting question. What happens if the foul is as a result of attempting to play the ball, even though there is no possibility to play the ball?

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive and one may categorise the OP incident as such.
 
one said:
An interesting question. What happens if the foul is as a result of attempting to play the ball, even though there is no possibility to play the ball?

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive and one may categorise the OP incident as such.
Click to expand...
Hmm in my mind, if there is no possibility to play the ball, it cannot be a (genuine) attempt to play the ball.

In this case, as the ball is on the ground, an attempt to play the ball must use the foot (or leg bits). If the ball is in the air, and your name begins with Diego, then theoretically you could attempt to play the ball with your shoulder.
 
I'm with Santa, no possibility to play the ball trumps genuine attempt.

It's all about player decision making processes. The player needs to accurately assess his chances of playing the ball, if the possibility isnt there the onus is on the player not to commit the foul.
 
JamesL said:
It's all about player decision making processes. The player needs to accurately assess his chances of playing the ball, if the possibility isnt there the onus is on the player not to commit the foul.
Click to expand...

That's a good way of putting it. He has attempted to play the ball but his assessment of the possibility was inaccurate. He isn't that far off.
1533474620513.png
 
I agree with the knowledgeable rules aficionados on here that a charge or a barge cannot be a viable attempt to play the ball and DOGSO was the correct on field decision. Again we see the bad side of VAR by way of players hounding the referee in a bid to somehow influence a review. The length of the discussion between the referee and VAR was intolerable. I got the feeling the referee was trying to stand his ground with the original decision, a battle of wills the referee eventually lost with a really poor outcome. For me, it only takes one of these calamities to undermine (say) five other times when VAR makes a useful contribution, because the mistake is five times less acceptable
 
santa sangria said:
Hmm in my mind, if there is no possibility to play the ball, it cannot be a (genuine) attempt to play the ball.
Click to expand...
With that said, direction from "on high" has been to go with leniency.

The original push, when this change came into effect was to look at the possibility of playing the ball, and if it wasn't obviously possible, then go red.

That has since changed to looking at the possibility, and if it is obviously impossible to play the ball (ie, ball rolling to empty goal 10m away, but needs a bit of help, and defender trips attacker), then go yellow.

In this case, the VAR portion alone took over two minutes. That should immediately tell us that this is not a clear and obvious error.

Despite that, with the instruction being given, whichever decision the referee started with is supportable. Red because it can be deemed a push with no attempt to play, yellow because it can be deemed a trip attempting to play the ball.

This is another example of a too-subjective VAR situation being sent down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top