A&H

Croatia-Denmark

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
that's where the LOTG become a farce. They've changed the law, and we've still got differences of opinion of whether it's a Y or R. I wish they would simplify matters !
 
I'll go against popular opinion - yellow for the DOSGO penalty for me.

Also, on first viewing I thought one of the Croatia lads did a penalty-feint and should have had that one chalked off. I haven't seen a replay though, but it didn't look right to me.
 
RobOda said:
I'll go against popular opinion - yellow for the DOSGO penalty for me.
Click to expand...

In the spirit of the law, I want it to be a red. That tackle was solely done to stop an opponent from scoring. However, it's hard to say he didn't attempt to play the ball. He just did it from the behind in an incredibly cynical way. It's a yellow for me (reckless tackle - tackle from behind that didn't endanger the safety of an opponent). Obviously a yellow for DOGSO as well, but we can't book them both. Good example of committing two offenses at the same time too!
 
Last edited:
Just watched replay and what comes to the penalty rc/yc, I'd say rc, because how on earth can you attempt to play the ball tacling player to his achilles? Altough I can see why yc, he "got the ball", but only after going through the man.
 
Preventing a goal by going through the back of a player and cynically taking him down amounts to 'no possibility of playing the ball' for me. Even if this assessment is wrong, the defender was circumventing the DOGSO Law. There's every chance this incident would have caused a mass confrontation at lower levels. It's unlikely the rule change for double jeopardy was intended for extreme scenario. All of this amounts to a dismissal
 
Stonewall red card for me, only intention was to hack player, nothing like a tackle, mistimed tackle, slide out by gk and striker is too fast for him and so on

I think also as much as I hate the notion of it because of the varying interpretations of it, you can also use the safety blanket of "football expects" here, if a player is about to shoot from 16 yards, central, ball at feet and basically would need to be hit by a sniper from the stands to miss the target, then illegally denying that striker that chance should be met with dismissal. For no other reason than this defenders hack, am glad Croatia went through. Had the defender taken one for the team, and not been sent off, then went on to score the winning penalty, then imo that would be an injustice.
 
I think that penalty was the time for a new law - the penalty goal!

The Croatian player was about to score, it was basically going to be a pass into the goal, there were no Danish players in front of him. The Danish defender brought him down to stop the goal being scored (irrespective of the new law, yellow or red).

If not a penalty goal, the penalty should have re-created the scenario at the time of the foul, i.e. no goalkeeper allowed for this penalty!

Discuss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
arbitre said:
I think that penalty was the time for a new law - the penalty goal!

The Croatian player was about to score, it was basically going to be a pass into the goal, there were no Danish players in front of him. The Danish defender brought him down to stop the goal being scored (irrespective of the new law, yellow or red).

If not a penalty goal, the penalty should have re-created the scenario at the time of the foul, i.e. no goalkeeper allowed for this penalty!

Discuss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Knowing Scotlands luck, they would manage to miss a penalty goal......
 
Sheffields Finest said:
View attachment 2174
Looks like a genuine attempt to play the ball to me.... Correct decision YC!!! :poop:
Click to expand...



For real? the ball is minimum a yard away from the defender, and getting further away by the millisecond, and he kicking through the back of the striker , if he , as as a world class defender, was going to tackle in any situation, it would be side on, everybody knows you cant tackle from behind, so how can that be a genuine attempt at an illegal act?
 
It says attempt? It doesn’t say you have to be millimetres away to fail l. It was a last ditch attempt, good on him, I’d of been proud of a Harry McGuire failing in the attempt, YC all day long just like the ref and VARs said. Great call
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Of course he can get the ball, he doesn’t actually have to get the ball, he has to attempt to!
Click to expand...


But it can only be a foul, not only can he not reach the ball (bear in mind the ball is moving away from him every millisecond even after the defender commits, he has to go through the back of the striker, which, regardless of whether or not you get the ball is a foul anyway?

I think what am trying to say is this is a foul regardless of whether he touches the ball, rendering the yc for attempting to play the ball null and void.
 
one said:
It is possible to get the ball clean from that position but is is not probable. I have seen it done before but its rare.
Click to expand...


Ok, I agree, its not impossible. On this occasion though, I deem it impossible to touch that ball from there without committing the foul though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top