goalkeeper red card incident

[Kent Ref]

No, you are still using your opinion as to whether it is an attempt for the ball or not.

I used hack as an example of something which most likely is not an attempt.

As I say, once upon a time the word "genuine" lived in law 12 under Dogso. It isn't there anymore so it's not needed to justify our decisions.

As you are so exact what is "an attempt for the ball" defined as by you when you are reffing?

If a defender trips the attacker by catching both his feet and not getting the ball is that "an attempt" or a red card?

Where does yellow move into red? If there is a line somewhere what do you base that one decision on?

 

[Justylove]

As you are so exact what is "an attempt for the ball" defined as by you when you are reffing?

Where does yellow move into red? If there is a line somewhere what do you base that one decision on?

It's reasonably straightforward.

Upper body offences - such as pulls, pushes and rugby tackles as described in the OP, cannot be conceived as any form of attempt to play the ball.

Lower body is a bit more subjective and personally I tend to give the defender the benefit of the doubt if they've attempted to make a tackle but got it wrong and it's late (so long as not excessive). The lower body ones that are the no attempt are the ones where the defender is cynically taking the player out, for example where the attacker is past and through and it's a kick out to the back leg of the attacker to stop them.

 

[Kent Ref]

It's reasonably straightforward.

Upper body offences - such as pulls, pushes and rugby tackles as described in the OP, cannot be conceived as any form of attempt to play the ball.

Lower body is a bit more subjective and personally I tend to give the defender the benefit of the doubt if they've attempted to make a tackle but got it wrong and it's late (so long as not excessive). The lower body ones that are the no attempt are the ones where the defender is cynically taking the player out, for example where the attacker is past and through and it's a kick out to the back leg of the attacker to stop them.

Thank you. That's helpful.

Due to my disability i operate in a mainly black and white mentality so struggle with variables.

Defining an attempt to tackle for the ball as opposed to no chance of getting the ball is a large gap of grey, for me.

 

[Anubis]

As you are so exact what is "an attempt for the ball" defined as by you when you are reffing?

If a defender trips the attacker by catching both his feet and not getting the ball is that "an attempt" or a red card?

Where does yellow move into red? If there is a line somewhere what do you base that one decision on?

thats an attempt for me. Obv discounting an SFP aspects


i had one last weekend at 0-5 with a min to play, a mistimed attempt in the box, one on one, up until the change, it be a red, however, the attacker was tripped, not serious foul played, its just the defender totally lost where the ball was
Nobody batted eye at the yellow, i was vocal soon as whistled and pointed to spot " thats an attempt", Granted it was not a very good one but an attempt none the less

 

[JamesL]

As you are so exact what is "an attempt for the ball" defined as by you when you are reffing?

If a defender trips the attacker by catching both his feet and not getting the ball is that "an attempt" or a red card?

Where does yellow move into red? If there is a line somewhere what do you base that one decision on?

I can't really add much more than @Justylove has.

 

[Kent Ref]

I can't really add much more than @Justylove has.

Not surprised really.

I'd hoped you would enlighten me with your knowledge.

 

[JamesL]

Not surprised really.

I'd hoped you would enlighten me with your knowledge.

I could have just plagiarised what Justy so aptly wrote in response to your question. It's very close to what I would have written so why try and take any glory from a perfect answer?

 

[socal lurker]

Upper body offences - such as pulls, pushes and rugby tackles as described in the OP, cannot be conceived as any form of attempt to play the ball.

I think it is slightly over broad to say that an upper body offense can never be an attempt to play the ball (but the Laws, of course exclude pushing, pulling, and holding from down-gradable DOGSO offenses, which would also capture the rugby tackle). I think it is possible to have a careless charge where the upper body force exceeds the acceptable that is a result of the attempt to play the ball that would not be red. That said, I don't think I've ever actually seen it.

 

[RustyRef]

You just have to make an instant judgement based on what you have seen, "did he attempt to play the ball". As has been said, for upper body offences there is no chance of that condition being met so it will almost always be DOGSO. For challenges with the legs it is your call, some will be obvious that no attempt was made, but if you have run all this through your head and still can't decide my advice would be to play safe and go for a caution.

 

[Kent Ref]

You just have to make an instant judgement based on what you have seen, "did he attempt to play the ball". As has been said, for upper body offences there is no chance of that condition being met so it will almost always be DOGSO. For challenges with the legs it is your call, some will be obvious that no attempt was made, but if you have run all this through your head and still can't decide my advice would be to play safe and go for a caution.

That makes sense.

Challenges with the legs that get nowhere near the ball - judging whether this as "an attempt" or just an "out-and-out foul". This is the large grey area that i struggle with.:

Attempt = yellow

Out and out foul = red.

I judge mainly on gut feeling but wish the law wasn't changed as my life would have been easier.

But i understand fully why the law was changed.

 

[Justylove]

You just have to make an instant judgement based on what you have seen, "did he attempt to play the ball". As has been said, for upper body offences there is no chance of that condition being met so it will almost always be DOGSO. For challenges with the legs it is your call, some will be obvious that no attempt was made, but if you have run all this through your head and still can't decide my advice would be to play safe and go for a caution.

@RustyRef - I get what you are saying, but I think you've written the above poorly.

An attempt for the ball doesn't make it 'not a DOGSO' it only makes it 'not a sending off'

I know what you mean, however could be confusing to others..

 

[Justylove]

That makes sense.

Challenges with the legs that get nowhere near the ball - judging whether this as "an attempt" or just an "out-and-out foul". This is the large grey area this i struggle with.:

Attempt = yellow

Out and out foul = red.

I judge mainly on gut feeling but wish the law wasn't changed as my life would have been easier.

But i understand fully why the law was changed.

I'm the other way round, I'm glad it was changed. I remember sending a goalkeeper off in a game before the law change, striker through 1 on 1 middle of the goal inside the PA, did a wonderful bit of skill to get it past the keeper who clipped him and sent him over.

Penalty and Red Card. It was the absolute definition of a GENUINE (I know we don't use it now) attempt to play the ball, he just got slightly outdone by a great bit of skill.

I almost apologetically sent him off and was one of the few occasions in my refereeing career where doing the right thing and sending him off actually sat really badly with me.

The next season the law changed and in that same circumstance it would have been a penalty and a caution.

 

[Anubis]

Cant find the clip but the Rangers gk escaped with a yc at Dundee this season for what looked to be a red. On a scale of 1-10 for attempts, this grazed the 1
Pretty awful attempt, but, an attempt none the less. Was confirmed the yc was the correct course of action,

 

[LothianRef]

Cant find the clip but the Rangers gk escaped with a yc at Dundee this season for what looked to be a red. On a scale of 1-10 for attempts, this grazed the 1
Pretty awful attempt, but, an attempt none the less. Was confirmed the yc was the correct course of action,

Approximately 02:55 in this

 

[Southerner In The North]

A qualified referee acting as a CAR would also know they can’t enter the field of play to contest the decision. I would have issued a card for him as well there to be honest but in terms of the red, sounds to me like you got it spot on

Actually to me a qualified ref acting as CAR often forgets and sometimes does to help as they forget there not appointed had this as with a Level 5 who coaches on a Sunday we actually laughed after as he admitted he forgot he was a CAR.

 

[Peter Grove]

Genuine was removed from the laws.
It was taught to us as any upper body (non footballing type) fouls were not attempts for the ball

The word "genuine" was never actually part of the main body of the law. However it did appear in the explanation that accompanied the change in 2016, as shown below:


I'm not sure we can say the word was removed exactly. Because the explanations only ever appear when a change is first introduced, anything in the explanatory text automatically disappears the following year. It doesn't mean its presence in the explantion is necessarily invalidated.

So when even the IFAB used the term "genuine" when it first made this amendment, I think it's not really so outrageous for people to use it when discussing the concepts involved.

In fact as I recall, in the press conference that followed the 2016 law changes, the term "genuine attempt" was used repeatedly by the IFAB representatives when answering questions about the change, which I think also partly explains why the media took up its use.

The use of genuine, is fabricated

As alluded to above, it is not fabricated, it was a term used both in the initial explanation given by the IFAB and in repeated answers to the press.

 

[Anubis]

The word "genuine" was never actually part of the main body of the law. However it did appear in the explanation that accompanied the change in 2016, as shown below:

View attachment 5435
I'm not sure we can say the word was removed exactly. Because the explanations only ever appear when a change is first introduced, anything in the explanatory text automatically disappears the following year. It doesn't mean its presence in the explantion is necessarily invalidated.

So when even the IFAB used the term "genuine" when it first made this amendment, I think it's not really so outrageous for people to use it when discussing the concepts involved.

In fact as I recall, in the press conference that followed the 2016 law changes, the term "genuine attempt" was used repeatedly by the IFAB representatives when answering questions about the change, which I think also partly explains why the media took up its use.


As alluded to above, it is not fabricated, it was a term used both in the initial explanation given by the IFAB and in repeated answers to the press.

"is"

because " was", is past tense.

 

[JamesL]

"is"

because " was", is past tense.

'Was' is correct due to my assertion it 'was' previously in the law.

 

[Peter Grove]

"is"

because " was", is past tense.

"Fabricated" means it is simply made up. It isn't made up, it is taken directly from the 2016 Laws document and the words of the IFAB.

If you want you say that it's no longer valid, you might have a point, but it was not and is not fabricated.

But even then, as I pointed out, the explanation text is not necessarily invalidated just because it isn't repeated every year (which wouldn't be logical as the amendment is no longer new).

 

[Anubis]

'Was' is correct due to my assertion it 'was' previously in the law.

Yip, and its not now, so its mention anywhere with regards to being in the book is null and void.
To anyone in thejr early stage of refereeing ' genuine' does not exist.

to todays guy passing the exam, " genuine" would be a fabrication as he/she would have no knowledge, or need to have knowledge, of the quoted 2016 text.

its a minor point anyway