A&H

Derby County red card .

The Referee Store
Red card.
The defender on line is out my equation
Granted its not bang central but its still a clear ' opportunity' to score a goal but for being upended by the gk, It does not have to be a clear cannot miss goal.

on my first viewing it looked sfp but not from the other angles
 
I thought DOGSO was only red for non footballing challenges such as handball, pulling the jerseys etc and that genuine attempts were only yellow even if DOGSO? Not the best tackle in the world but to me it looks like he timed his interception poorly on a genuine attempt
 
I thought DOGSO was only red for non footballing challenges such as handball, pulling the jerseys etc and that genuine attempts were only yellow even if DOGSO? Not the best tackle in the world but to me it looks like he timed his interception poorly on a genuine attempt

DOGSO outside the penalty area is a red, inside the area is a yellow if genuine attempt for the ball.
 
I thought DOGSO was only red for non footballing challenges such as handball, pulling the jerseys etc and that genuine attempts were only yellow even if DOGSO? Not the best tackle in the world but to me it looks like he timed his interception poorly on a genuine attempt
And I'm going to be pedantic in this one. If it is "attempt to play the ball" it can be downgraded. This is simple enough. All other explanations here just make it more confusing. I've heard above waist, below belt, footballing challenge, challenge with feet, from behind/side etc. all used as criteria. Non of these make it simpler than what the law says, "attempt to play the ball".

And a side note, the word "genuine" is not used by the laws, so let's not make it any more complicated than it should be.

PS: video is geo-blocked so haven't seen the OP incident.
 
Ok seen the incident now. For me direction is not so much of an issue. Taking the ball around keeper is the source of many DOGSO's by keeper's and it often has the direction not directly at goal. Note the the consideration (not requirement) in laws is "general direction of play".

For me control is the main issue. The team mate who had likely chance of control, did get control and couldn't do much with it. The player who was fouled didn't have much chance of control or at least without a defender immediately on his goal side. There was a obvious chance which diminished after the heavy touch and the foul happened after that. This is one which a combination of all four considerations would make it a yellow for me:
• distance between the offence and the goal
• general direction of the play
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• location and number of defenders

I think the reason the ref gave it red is expectations. Keeper fouls the striker on a one on one, the expectation is DOGSO, outside of area makes it red.
 
And I'm going to be pedantic in this one. If it is "attempt to play the ball" it can be downgraded. This is simple enough. All other explanations here just make it more confusing. I've heard above waist, below belt, footballing challenge, challenge with feet, from behind/side etc. all used as criteria. Non of these make it simpler than what the law says, "attempt to play the ball".

And a side note, the word "genuine" is not used by the laws, so let's not make it any more complicated than it should be.

PS: video is geo-blocked so haven't seen the OP incident.
I know it isn't now, but wasn't 'genuine' in originally when the law changed or did I dream that?
 
I know it isn't now, but wasn't 'genuine' in originally when the law changed or did I dream that?
I think the word genuine appeared in of of the circulars when it was proposed. On the phone now, I can check if it ever appears in law and get back to you once I get here once I get access to my laptop.
 
I think the word genuine appeared in of of the circulars when it was proposed. On the phone now, I can check if it ever appears in law and get back to you once I get here once I get access to my laptop.
Just checked myself. Think it may have been a circular.
The original wording said caution unless x y and z. Then it changed to what we have today in 17-18
 
Just checked myself. Think it may have been a circular.
The original wording said caution unless x y and z. Then it changed to what we have today in 17-18
Yeap. The 16-17 main laws didn't have it. But the explanations for law changes at the end included both words clear and genuine. Typical of ifab giving mixed messages. The laws should be applied as it's currently written not historcal information. If they want it applied as strict with the qualification of 'genuine' and 'clear' they should just put it in law. Just like 'clear and obvious error', 'obvious GSO', or 'clearly moves'. The strict application of each of of those mean something. For example 'clearly moves' means just a tap on the ball (at a corner) does not put it into play.
 
Yeap. The 16-17 main laws didn't have it. But the explanations for law changes at the end included both words clear and genuine. Typical of ifab giving mixed messages. The laws should be applied as it's currently written not historcal information. If they want it applied as strict with the qualification of 'genuine' and 'clear' they should just put it in law. Just like 'clear and obvious error', 'obvious GSO', or 'clearly moves'. The strict application of each of of those mean something. For example 'clearly moves' means just a tap on the ball (at a corner) does not put it into play.
I agree generally, notwithstanding my position the an attempt is something done with full intention. In the context of DOGSO it's not merely "I'm going to take the player out and hope I get somewhere in the vicinity of the ball"
 
Tricky one. But it's not just the direction the ball was going - the fouled player would have been past the GK and well placed to get the ball passed to him from his teammate with the GK stranded.
 
In a game at the ability level which I referee, I think this ends up as Yellow for all the reasons @one describes. At EFL level, I'd back the referee whatever colour he/she opted for. You can make a coherent argument either way given the higher ability level of the attackers
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Hrm tough one. I don't think the pass from the person that was fouled, led to an OGSO.

And I don't think it is worth an advantage tbh. Caution perhaps. Had the player played it straight on, then yes, nailed on red card IMO.
 
Back
Top