socal lurker
RefChat Addict
No retake decision there then - nor DOGSO.
Correct. He just gave the IFK with no misconduct.
No retake decision there then - nor DOGSO.
I think you are mixing the expectations of an event happening and the expectations of how to handle it when it happens.Did you see players swarming the R seeking a send off? I doubt anyone who isn’t a R knows it should be a send off (and I agree there isn’t really room to debate whether it technically was DOGSO—I think it’s awfully clear.)I’d love to hear IFAB or a federation talk about the call, but I doubt we will. And it will be interesting to see if it leads to a call to change the DOGSO standards.
Whilst your overall point is extremely valid, the example you've used to illustrate it isn't a great one. It's entirely possible for an attacker to quite legitimately do as you describe above. IF he genuinely hasn't had time to leave the penalty area because the GK has taken the goal kick quickly ....Another example, if an attacker is in the PA when a goal kick is taken (or before the ball is in play in previous years) and he ends up scoring a goal, you wont see players surrounding the referee to disallow the goal (attested by some goals having been allowed this way in the past)
Something I havn't had any practice on yet as was always going to be a retake in the past But even that is a good example . There just hasn't been enough of these to form expectations .Whilst your overall point is extremely valid, the example you've used to illustrate it isn't a great one. It's entirely possible for an attacker to quite legitimately do as you describe above. IF he genuinely hasn't had time to leave the penalty area because the GK has taken the goal kick quickly ....
I think you are mixing the expectations of an event happening and the expectations of how to handle it when it happens.
How can there not be an offence if the player has played the ball twice consecutively at a goal kick as in the video?And I think you’re over reading what I’m saying. I’m not arguing against applying DOGSO, I’m asking questions. A send off here seems harsh — but in part because there wasn’t actually an offense it was a botched call. And a ref far better than Indecided to make the call and not send off the keeper.
How can there not be an offence if the player has played the ball twice consecutively at a goal kick as in the video?
Either they are not following procedure, for which the sanction is to retake it, or they are touching the ball after it is in play, for which the sanction is an IFK (and, if also DOGSO, a dismissal).
If there was no offence, there is no reason to intervene at all.Not sure what your disagreeing with. I’ve said it should have been a retake, as there was no offense.