Foreign Object - DOGso
- Thread starter Degnann
- Start date
The penalty try in rugby is based on the idea that if a foul hadn't occurred (usually not the first time), the try would have been scored. That's a far more subjective judgement call than what I've accidentally found myself proposing here!
To go back to the initial clip that sparked it - the ball is 100% definitely going into the goal before the outside agent gets involved. I'm reminded of another clip where a ballboy runs around the post to make a save. Again, on the line and blocking a shot that clearly had enough power to go in. Football isn't some force of nature we're trying to codify, it's a sport where people choose the laws. If I'm writing the LOTG and I say "Penalty Goal in the case of A, but not in the cases of B, C and D" then it's within my power to define what those letters mean.
I don't understand why this is confusing people. Was the ball clearly going to go in the goal with 100% certainty? No? Then you do the drop ball.
It's not confusing in the slightest.
It's more disagreement.
To be clear I fully, wholly, and have no difficulty, understanding what you are suggesting.
I just don't agree with it. I get that this ball was clearly going I the goal but it didn't. No goal. Sorry, that's just how it is.
Allowing someone make a judgement, or guess, as to what happens next is simply opening the door to controversy, in my opinion.
Let's take the most high profile incident ot outside interference.
Beach ball gate.
We all agree (I hope) that this goal should have been disallowed and a dropped ball awarded.
With you law change you've left that open to a referee's interpretation, and you'd have some refs awarding a goal and some refs disagreeing and awarding a dropped ball.
You're confused because you seem to be misunderstanding the concept of 100% certainty. Beachball-gate there was a GK involved so you can't say for sure it was definitely going to go in - so the drop ball is clearly the correct outcome.
Apologies if I'm coming across frustrated. I didn't really intend to advocate for this as a law change - for whatever reason I thought it was a law change that had happened! And all the questions being put to me are along the same lines: What if a less-than-certain goal is blocked by an outside agent? Which just means I'm repeating the same answer over and over again: If it's less-than-certain, you can't award the goal and your options are drop ball or play on.
What if [circumstance where your suggestion doesn't apply]? Then suggestion doesn't apply. It's a fairly repetitive format to be asked about over and over at 9am with a bit of a headache.
You're saying that in the initial clip in this thread, if not for that dog, you think something else was going to stop that shot?
Nah, but just because I can't identify a particular possibility doesn't mean that you have gotten any higher than a probability of the ball going in. A high probability, but not 100%.
I'm saying you would have to adjust your threshold for the law to work, and that adjusted threshold would lead to ambiguity.
I'm saying you would have to adjust your threshold for the law to work, and that adjusted threshold would lead to ambiguity.
one
RefChat Addict
No he is saying everyone agrees on the certainty of this one. But there would be other ones which some referees are 100% certain it would be a goal and some referees wouldn't . Introducing a "penalty goal" in football can't predict all circumstances it would have to apply to and is not good for football. Just create inconsistency into one of the consistent areas of our basics. Yes we do have some rare unfairness but that is a price worth paying.
Haven't learnt from VAR? The only thing about clear and obvious about "clear & obvious" is that it is not.
Again, you're misusing the word certainty. What you're saying is that there are some situations where you can be certain the ball would have gone in (this example) and some where you're not certain. Any individual referee can be wrong, that doesn't invalidate the law. I'm sure I've given a penalty that shouldn't be a penalty before, does that means we just abandon the whole concept of penalties because one referee might get it wrong?
Again, people keep trying to extrapolate it to situations where I'm not saying it should be applied. If one referee thinks it's going in and another doesn't, then it's not a certain goal. If referee A still claims they are certain about that split decision then they are wrong. See my previous post:
"What if [circumstance where your suggestion doesn't apply]? Then suggestion doesn't apply."
LothianRef
Member
To me if the goal area is so waterlogged that it would affect the game in this way then I’m calling the game off
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think @GraemeS 's proposal (and he's not the only one to make it) that if the R is 100% certain the ball was going in the R can award the goal would ruin the game or take down a terrible parade of horribles--this is a blue moon event. But I also think that is why it isn't a worthwhile change--it is so rare that, IMO, it isn't worth changing a fundamental concept of the game to chase those unicorns. I also think that here in the real world, it if was adopted it would be applied improperly more often than it was used properly.
one
RefChat Addict
And that's why it would ruin the game. Because "improperly" can mean using it a lot more than just the rare occasions.
As I said before, haven't we learnt from "clear and obvious error" which is used like "I think he made an error"?
Interesting historical note: in 1882 a rule was introduced that if a player other than the goalkeeper prevented a goal by handling, and the referee was sure that a goal would have resulted, he may still award it as if scored (the penalty kick was still about 8 years away). There was a huge arguement all across Britain (Scotland said they would never allow such a ruling) and the Law was repealed the following year. In fact the disagreements were so intense that talks were put in hand to set up a joint group from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to harmonize all Laws. And three years later the IFAB was born...
The benefit of a provision like that, though, is that at least it arises from the misconduct of one of the teams.
I've had an ongoing argument with a mate about 'penalty goals' in football since the suarez handball in 2010.
I was very much against it for a long time but I think it makes a lot of sense, in the case of foul play or outside interference.
Not that I'll ever admit that to my mate!
Looking at the wording of the laws and taking into account the spirit of the game, it is entirely acceptable to award a goal in this situation because:
- the ball was going into the goal,
- the interference didn't prevent a defender from playing the ball, and
- the ball entered the goal.
In my view, it matters not that the ball did not directly enter the goal after touching the dog. The only consideration is that it did enter the goal.
- the ball was going into the goal,
- the interference didn't prevent a defender from playing the ball, and
- the ball entered the goal.
In my view, it matters not that the ball did not directly enter the goal after touching the dog. The only consideration is that it did enter the goal.
The ball did not enter the goal until after his whistle
Oh, I hadn't noticed. If the referee delayed his whistle, awarding a goal would have been acceptable. However, stopping play for a dropped ball is also acceptable. It's a matter of interpretation and different referees apply the laws differently.
one
RefChat Addict
(Let's say the referee did not blow the whistle) It shouldn't matter if the ball entered the goal later, and at the moment of interference it did not prevent a defender from playing the ball. The interference did change the course of the game. The dog passed the ball to an attacker.
your logic is in a way applying advantage off an interference. There is no such thing in lotg, in wording or in its spirit.