Foreign Object - DOGso
- Thread starter Degnann
- Start date
Thats my understanding, my chat disagrees and believes the ball has to cross the line for it to be given
It does have to enter the goal still.
You can't award a goal in any event unless the ball wholly crosses the goal line between the posts and under the crossbar.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Thanks for clearing that up, as an observer and former class tutor I was blissfully unaware whst that meant..........
or maybe the post was in relation to a goal scoring opportunity, being stopped by a
making it, a Dog so .....
It was a play on words in relation to it being a dogThanks for clearing that up, as an observer and former class tutor I was blissfully unaware whst that meant..........
or maybe the post was in relation to a goal scoring opportunity, being stopped by a
making it, a Dog so .....
Ah completely missed that. I actually took it as two separate pointsYou could have saved yourself sometime and just read post #7
It is really badly worded, but the goal can only be given if the ball crosses the line. Previously a goal would be denied if it hit the foreign object and still went in, this law change allows the referee to use discretion as to whether the goal can still be given.
I guess that's my misunderstanding - I remember this change being introduced and thought at the time the wording was a little unclear but as @Degnann says, thought it was written to be interpreted as two separate events. Still seems wilfully archaic that the referee can't just make that call based on what would obviously otherwise happen
Basic principles of football though...
Where do you extend it to. Say that wasn't a goal, and the dog stopped the ball going for a throw in - ahh sod it just give the throw?
Which is all fine and well until a referee makes a wrong call on a marginal decision, or just like spirit of the game start applying it to other situations that SOG does not apply to.
Yes, it's poorly written. Too wordy and a bit jumbled. No surprise there.
I think we open a wierd and wonderful Pandoras box if we start allowing referees to make decisions based on what the think would Obviously happen.
It's an established concept in other sports for much less clear-cut examples and it doesn't break those games. The penalty try in rugby is the most obvious example. The concept of "points awarded by the referee in specific circumstances" is not new, hence why I understood that to be the concept that was being introduced here.
In terms of if it should be done? You can make a classic "slippery slope" argument, but there's literally no reason to go any further down that slope. So yes - in the cases where the ball is obviously going in the goal and an outside agent unrelated to the players and officials interferes, I don't see that an awarded goal would be particularly game-breaking at all. It's a one-in-a-million occurrence anyway...
Like I said to James, there's absolutely no need to turn this into a "slippery slope" discussion. Just because "A" is true, does not automatically mean "B", "C" or "D" must also be true. The weather is not defined as an outside agent, so (assuming you're not calling the game off for a waterlogged pitch) then no goal.
You can keep throwing scenarios at me and I'm going to keep giving you a consistent answer on where the line is.
Graeme, I take your point but all changes need to be risk assessed. Not saying BC and D are true but they are certain ly more likely.
Regarding your point on rugby (I know very little) there is a difference between a ball passing the line between 2 posts 8 yards apart and lower than 7ft. Than a ball being carried over and placed on the floor in a 60 yard length area.