A&H

Euro 2020 final

Hopefully you realise you are simply making the point I made.

You will get disconnect between what those playing and watching the game WANT and what is CORRECT or MANDATED in the LOTG.

The disconnect occurs due to a number of factors:

Ignorance of the laws - prime examples are the irate protests around a player shouting 'leave it' to a teammate, the difference between 'last man' and DOGSO and the difference between careless, reckless and excessive force "that's reckless ref, you should have sent him off"

Game context - your example is highly relevant, early in a big game at youth level, some kid is going to be gutted to have been sent off without kicking a ball, or it's a game where the score is 8-0 and you send off a player on the losing side. In these cases you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. You send the kid off early doors and you've spoilt the game for him and everyone else, especially if the team down a player goes on to lose. Likewise you don't send the kid off, then the opposing team feels aggrieved, especially if they lose the game. Clearly there is wiggle room if the offence isn't 100% clear cut and you can err on the side of leniency if it's an 'orange' offence, but if it's nailed on, then you have no choice.

I always used to feel sorry for the GK that made a valiant effort to save the ball with a striker in the PA and through on goal, got it slightly wrong and ended up getting sent off for DOGSO, thankfully sense prevailed and we saw a law change a few years back that stopped that!
 
The Referee Store
Polar opppsite but same principle I think, I once had a u13 final between a traditionally difficult team and a well known reputable club.
Less than a min in, clearest DOGSO of all time, its red.
Well aware whats to come, and correct to fear the worst,
"he is only 12"
' its a minute played'
' course our guys off, would not expect anything else"
of course paraphrasing and the langauage was colourful.

Coach on park, parents on park, the lot, threatening to take team off and so on

Why? cos the referee correctly carried out the requirements in the book.

maybe in hindsight knowing what was to come I should have adjusted the correct call and made it one that would provoke a different reaction.
or maybe not
For me, at 12 years old, there's a huge difference between County Div 1 games and Div 6 affairs. Literally chalk and cheese. Not even sure the latter can be classed as football as the kids are useless and only there for participation, exercise and enjoyment
 
For me, at 12 years old, there's a huge difference between County Div 1 games and Div 6 affairs. Literally chalk and cheese. Not even sure the latter can be classed as football as the kids are useless and only there for participation, exercise and enjoyment

Competitive, cup final, 100 on sidelines, trophy up for grabs, 11 a side, game played in a semi pro ground, full size park.
 
Competitive, cup final, 100 on sidelines, trophy up for grabs, 11 a side, game played in a semi pro ground, full size park.
Ah... football then... LOTG prevail
No point you being there otherwise. Besides, if you didn't send the kid off, the pain averted by swerving your duties, would only be multiplied 10-fold when the same kid scores the winner. Footy has a strange ability to dish out fateful punishments to us Refs
I prefer higher standard OA football, largely because there's no ambiguity about what's expected of us. (Young) Kids games are boobytrapped with nasty little mines, some of which are clustered together, all of which have the R's name on them
 
Last edited:
I only do youth games and would not have hesitated to call DOGSO in a 13U game. To me, the issue in young games is the question of what is obvious at the skill level. At 10U, very, very few things are really OGSOs. At 12U, few things are OGSOs. (To my surprise (and pleasure) I've only had one DOGSO as R--and it was if the GK/PK/caution variety the first year the downgrade to caution was possible--I had a chat with the GK about how lucky he was.)
 
The disconnect occurs due to a number of factors:

Ignorance of the laws - prime examples are the irate protests around a player shouting 'leave it' to a teammate, the difference between 'last man' and DOGSO and the difference between careless, reckless and excessive force "that's reckless ref, you should have sent him off"
.....
The real disconnect between reckless and excessive force is between the laws and the language used by normal people. To define excessive force you need to know what force is necessary, and why it's ok to trap a ball with your studs but not if your foot might slip off onto an opponent's knee (which most normal people would describe as reckless).

Same with continuing to use the redundant phrase "gaining an advantage" long after it excluded situations where players can still be "gaining an advantage" by being in an offside position.

Or "brutality" in VC - even a missed headbutt can be brutal, whereas brutality makes me think of the Piranha Brothers nailing my head to the floor.
 
Same with continuing to use the redundant phrase "gaining an advantage" long after it excluded situations where players can still be "gaining an advantage" by being in an offside position.
this is my biggest pet peeve with the language of the Laws. That language is so completely at odds with what it means that it is very confusing in teaching new refs. I understand the evolution of how we got here, and they did some helpful cleanup on Law 11 language a few years ago. But this relic really needs to go away.
 
this is my biggest pet peeve with the language of the Laws. That language is so completely at odds with what it means that it is very confusing in teaching new refs. I understand the evolution of how we got here, and they did some helpful cleanup on Law 11 language a few years ago. But this relic really needs to go away.
It's a simple fix too.

Instead of:

"or
  • gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent"
you just say:

"This offence also applies when the ball has rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent or has been deliberately saved by any opponent"
 
For the horse collar, I would have gone VC. A shirt pull vs a collar pull changed where the force was applied...i.e. the neck.

Pulling the hair tackle is what I see more of in women's soccer.
 
For the horse collar, I would have gone VC. A shirt pull vs a collar pull changed where the force was applied...i.e. the neck.

Pulling the hair tackle is what I see more of in women's soccer.
As much as I probably still wouldn’t have, I can live with that explanation as to why if it was given VC
 
It seems that most of our colleagues from across the pond any this to be red. I suspect this has to do with how the same act is viewed in American football.
Perhaps so. Of course after you see the gruesome injuries that type of tackle causes in American football you can understand why it has such a strict penalty. When you're talking about pro athletes with open fractures on their legs and multiple torn ligaments in their knees it can get very bad. Almost thankfully in this case he didn't fall back underneath his own legs.
 
It seems that most of our colleagues from across the pond any this to be red. I suspect this has to do with how the same act is viewed in American football.
I'm still surprised anyone expected this to be red. Never considered anything but yellow and was laughing at the tackle. Don't think the players (or Kuipers for that matter) ever spent half a second expecting red except for the non-existent DOGSO. Also not sure the match report would accurately depict a VC here
 
Perhaps so. Of course after you see the gruesome injuries that type of tackle causes in American football you can understand why it has such a strict penalty. When you're talking about pro athletes with open fractures on their legs and multiple torn ligaments in their knees it can get very bad. Almost thankfully in this case he didn't fall back underneath his own legs.

Different sport, different dynamics, but more importantly different expectation. I am fairly certain if Chiellini had any feeling of expectation of this being a red (for example if he had learnt his trade in MLS) he would have stopped Saka a different way.
 
True about american football, but my son is looking at rugby and a horse collar tackle is considered very dangerous. (Edit: to be clear, it's the tackle going high. Most grabbing of the shirt is legal in rugby. He's just learning the game, but it's really not the grab, but the direction of the pull and where on the body or neck the pressure is applied.)

Of course, I enjoy hockey and watching soccer players go down like their dying...well, if I used hockey as a guide for charges, soccer would all be doubtful fouls.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top