ARSENAL VS CHELSEA

[AlexF]

I don't buy this. If they had said the attacker didn't have the ball under control, then I could accept it.

For me, the combination of the ball control being on the verge of questionable plus the other defender being 3-4m away towards the centre of the field introduced just sufficient doubt from obvious.

On the double jeopardy point about penalty and dismissal, we already have the option to downgrade a red to a yellow and a yellow to a warning, depending on the outcome, how about a law change whereby the offender is dismissed if the goal is not scored from the penalty?

And put the decision as to whether a player is sent off in the hands of the kicker and goalkeeper? Surely you jest!

(And yes, I know your name isn't Shirley! )

 

[JamesL]

Yeah, but was the ball?

The keeper was out the ball was in. He was reaching back to catch it. Remarkable how heanaged to do it. Probably luck more than anything but still not reviewable either way.

 

[JamesL]

I don't buy this. If they had said the attacker didn't have the ball under control, then I could accept it.

On the double jeopardy point about penalty and dismissal, we already have the option to downgrade a red to a yellow and a yellow to a warning, depending on the outcome, how about a law change whereby the offender is dismissed if the goal is not scored from the penalty?

Because an obvious scoring opportunity was not denied by there being a penalty awarded. A penalty is an obvious scoring opportunity.
It's not denying a certain goal a player is dismissed for, it denying the chance. The spirit of the law change is the opportunity is still there. Its not a trade off, player for goal situation.

 

[JamesL]

If AT had gone with DOGSO, it couldn't be downgraded to yellow as it was a pulling offence. I think Rodriguez was close enough to go with SPA (no downgrade, so YC for pulling). I would go with the lesser charge if I wasn't sure, so I thought it (SPA) was the correct call

I think it was a DOGSO myself, but I don't think it was a clear enough and obvious enough error to review it as there were, especially real time, question marks over gaining control and location of other defenders.

 

[Big Cat]

Because an obvious scoring opportunity was not denied by there being a penalty awarded. A penalty is an obvious scoring opportunity.
It's not denying a certain goal a player is dismissed for, it denying the chance. The spirit of the law change is the opportunity is still there. Its not a trade off, player for goal situation.

Correct any mistake on my behalf with this, but double jeopardy is still the outcome if it's a DOGSO-PK but the offender made no attempt to play the ball (as in pulling down in this case)

 

[onthebrink]

Correct any mistake on my behalf with this, but double jeopardy is still the outcome if it's a DOGSO-PK but the offender made no attempt to play the ball (as in pulling down in this case)

You're right, but I think the poster is referring to the idea of basing the decision on whether a player is sent off or not on whether the penalty is scored and pointing out that this shouldn't make a difference.

 

[GraemeS]

First YC could have been red.


Fanzone: not as odd as his writing a name on a yellow card then changing it to a red.

I don't think he knew he was issuing a 2nd yellow. Nothing about AT's body language suggested he knew he was in the middle of the key moment - all explained if we theorise he only noticed the name on his card as he was in the process of noting the Arsenal dissent

 

[JamesL]

Correct any mistake on my behalf with this, but double jeopardy is still the outcome if it's a DOGSO-PK but the offender made no attempt to play the ball (as in pulling down in this case)

You are quite right but the spirit of the law change is there to protect those that attempt to play the ball from being sent off.. And as above my over Riding point was in response to the suggestion the PK outcome determined the fate of the offender.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

You are quite right but the spirit of the law change is there to protect those that attempt to play the ball from being sent off.. And as above my over Riding point was in response to the suggestion the PK outcome determined the fate of the offender.

But wrong in law. The law is clear, if it is DOGSO-PK and not a genuine attempt to play the ball (and that includes holding/pulling), then the player should be dismissed. Just being clear for the sake of anyone who may be observed during the forthcoming season. Wouldn't want them to be called out over a KMI because of your incorrect statement. Spirit of the law does not apply to DOGSO; the letter of the law does.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Really? Early DOGSO and you give the offended against team the option of scoring a goal or missing it so they can play most of the match against ten opponents?

Yes really. We have the option to change a decision now based on outcome, so why not this one. IFAB have made approximately 450 changes to law in the last 5 years, not all for the benefit of the game or easy to sell to anyone who isn't a referee. This would be one of the most obvious. You've denied a goal, so the opposition either gets the goal or you lose a player.

It would need refinement of course, that should only take 2-3 seasons to get it right.

 

[JamesL]

But wrong in law. The law is clear, if it is DOGSO-PK and not a genuine attempt to play the ball (and that includes holding/pulling), then the player should be dismissed. Just being clear for the sake of anyone who may be observed during the forthcoming season. Wouldn't want them to be called out over a KMI because of your incorrect statement. Spirit of the law does not apply to DOGSO; the letter of the law does.

Thats what I said.....
Fully aware of the DOGSO law. We arent talking about the law, but why it was introduced and why your bizarre suggestion the outcome of the penalty determines the fate of the offender.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Thats what I said.....
Fully aware of the DOGSO law. We arent talking about the law, but why it was introduced and why your bizarre suggestion the outcome of the penalty determines the fate of the offender.

Suggestion on its way to IFAB. Would get rid of all the discussion about whether it was DOGSO - attempt/not attempt to play the ball

 

[JamesL]

Yes really. We have the option to change a decision now based on outcome, so why not this one. IFAB have made approximately 450 changes to law in the last 5 years, not all for the benefit of the game or easy to sell to anyone who isn't a referee. This would be one of the most obvious. You've denied a goal, so the opposition either gets the goal or you lose a player.

It would need refinement of course, that should only take 2-3 seasons to get it right.

But its not the denial of a goal that you send off for. You'd have to have 2 classifications of dogso, one which was a certain goal and one that was a obvious opportunity. An obvious opportunity may not always lead to a goal for example a mis kick, a worldy save, putting it wide, blasting it over.
Again, the law is not denied a certain goal, its denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity...

 

[Brian Hamilton]

But its not the denial of a goal that you send off for. You'd have to have 2 classifications of dogso, one which was a certain goal and one that was a obvious opportunity. An obvious opportunity may not always lead to a goal for example a mis kick, a worldy save, putting it wide, blasting it over.
Again, the law is not denied a certain goal, its denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity...

Did you see this

Me using emoji to denote humour. I wonder if all law changes started as a joke. Collina and Elleray sharing an orange juice in the bar and suddenly one of them has this idea not to send players off for...

Going back to serious point again - on the red card. I think @GraemeS nailed it. AT had forgotten the first yellow card.

 

[Trip]

For me, the combination of the ball control being on the verge of questionable plus the other defender being 3-4m away towards the centre of the field introduced just sufficient doubt from obvious.

The holding offence started a fair way out of the PA. At the point where the whistle was blown you could argue there's a covering defender but he's only made it that far because the attacker has been impeded for 10 yards.

I think it was DOGSO but I also think it's a forgivable error and I would next expect it to be overturned by VAR.

The second yellow, on the other hand ... oops.

 

[Kes]

Did you see this

Me using emoji to denote humour.

That particular emoji denotes sarcasm - not humour ....

 

[Kent Ref]

Because an obvious scoring opportunity was not denied by there being a penalty awarded. A penalty is an obvious scoring opportunity.
It's not denying a certain goal a player is dismissed for, it denying the chance. The spirit of the law change is the opportunity is still there. Its not a trade off, player for goal situation.

Are you saying that if a penalty is awarded you cannot send off? That's not how i read the LOTG.

 

[JamesL]

Are you saying that if a penalty is awarded you cannot send off? That's not how i read the LOTG.

No I am not. Maybe I have worded it poorly.
Prior to the law change any dogso was a red card offence.
The law was changed so that in an attempt for the ball a player would not need to be dismissed as the GSO was still present.
I am fully aware that handball, no attempt for the ball (eg holding/pulling) still results in a send off.
I was talking specifically about.l a suggestion that the sanction be determined by the outcome of the penalty but I think that has been lost and lead to. Misinterpretation of what I was saying.

 

[Kent Ref]

No I am not. Maybe I have worded it poorly.
Prior to the law change any dogso was a red card offence.
The law was changed so that in an attempt for the ball a player would not need to be dismissed as the GSO was still present.
I am fully aware that handball, no attempt for the ball (eg holding/pulling) still results in a send off.
I was talking specifically about.l a suggestion that the sanction be determined by the outcome of the penalty but I think that has been lost and lead to. Misinterpretation of what I was saying.

Did the chelsea player try for the ball or grab the player?

 

[JamesL]

Did the chelsea player try for the ball or grab the player?

That's not consequential to the point I was making or responding too
I have already said I think it was a DOGSO Red (ok so I didn't specify red but implied it by explaining thought beind a no review) but I also think in real time there are enough doubts about control and covering defender to not make it a clear and obvious error..