How would you implement that in law?Cheating. Should be banned for 10 games. Maybe all DOGSOs should be a PK
This behaviour is uncommon at grass roots, unless the perpetrator thinks he can fight all comers
Late in the game, sometimes it's worth taking a red card for the team. Completely unfair on the team who was through on goal. This is why I'd like to see a law change where DOGSO is always a penalty kick even if the offense occurs outside of the penalty area.
At the moment, any DOGSO outside the box must be red, while DOGSO inside the box can be yellow if 1. it was an attempt to play the ball, and 2. a PK is awarded. This is a corner case of a corner case, and may be easily forgotten by less experienced officials (or those of much experience with previous LOTG editions who haven't updated yet).You'd have to distinguish between an attempt to play the ball or no attempt to play the ball for offences outside the box. Maybe if no attempt to play the ball, then you go PK, and red card, but then you're going to get controversy because it's open to interpretation.
Part of the problem we are having with elements like handball is that there are 1 or 2 incidents that create a sh*tstorm and we end up with a change to the law that whilst well intentioned creates a whole new set of problems.
12.3 Where a player commits an offence against an opponent w̶i̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶p̶e̶n̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶a̶ 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.
14.i A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area, or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13, or commits an offence against an opponent which denies an opponent a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
Play on.... next!
While you have removed one complexity out of DOGSO, you have added one complexity to the PK (the exception when an offence outside the PA means a PK). For me the second complexity is not worth removal of the first one.At the moment, any DOGSO outside the box must be red, while DOGSO inside the box can be yellow if 1. it was an attempt to play the ball, and 2. a PK is awarded. This is a corner case of a corner case, and may be easily forgotten by less experienced officials (or those of much experience with previous LOTG editions who haven't updated yet).
Proposing a PK for any DOGSO would remove the difference in criteria here. Then the only decisions are
The relevant text of law then becomes
- was it DOGSO? If yes, give automatic PK. If not, give dependent FK.
- was it an attempt to play ball? If yes, caution. If not, dismiss.
YepPersonally I love seeing the professional foul. It's a clean method of playing dirty if that even makes sense?
I think it's poor refereeing. He thinks the job is done after showing the red, in reality he then has to show 3 preventable cautions because he wasn't aware of what was to come. Would the Atleti players have bombarded the Real player had the referee stood between them with his arms out? Maybe, but probably not.Not exactly done right. He shows the card, turns and walks away. There is absolutely every chance of of a flashpoint happening there. He should have been standing next to the offender walking him off or at least pointing away any approaching Atletico players.
I think it's poor refereeing. He thinks the job is done after showing the red, in reality he then has to show 3 preventable cautions because he wasn't aware of what was to come. Would the Atleti players have bombarded the Real player had the referee stood between them with his arms out? Maybe, but probably not.