The Ref Stop

goalkeeper red card incident

Those been around long enough should remember that "exceeds the necessary use of force" was preceded with the word "far" for many years. "Far" was removed because the criteria could be misinterpreted. The use of the word "genuine" can have the same issues and I am fairly sure it wasn't added to laws in the first place for the same reasons.
 
The Ref Stop
Southerner In The North said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but I don’t buy into that. You can’t simply just ‘forget you’re a CAR’ and even if you somehow do and think you’re an official assistant on the game, why would you walk on the pitch to argue a referees decision?
 
On the upper v lower body argument - does that not change if its the GK as they can make an attempt to play the ball with their hands if the ball is above waist height for example, much more difficult, bordering on the improbable for an outfield player to do so though?
 
PinnerPaul said:
On the upper v lower body argument - does that not change if its the GK as they can make an attempt to play the ball with their hands if the ball is above waist height for example, much more difficult, bordering on the improbable for an outfield player to do so though?
Click to expand...
It would because the keeper is making an attempt to play the ball. And is not pushing/pulling etc.
 
JamesL said:
It would because the keeper is making an attempt to play the ball. And is not pushing/pulling etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks James, reason I asked is that op mentioned GK's hands up around oppo's shoulders, outfield player easy decision, GK not quite so much, if the ball is in playing (by the GK) distance.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Thanks James, reason I asked is that op mentioned GK's hands up around oppo's shoulders, outfield player easy decision, GK not quite so much, if the ball is in playing (by the GK) distance.
Click to expand...
Lost sight of the OP with all the "genuine" mullarkey.

I think the OP is straight forward...

"Blue GK grabs white player by the shoulders and brings him to the ground. A rugby style tackle if you will."

This is not an attempt for the ball as it involves, pushing/pulling/rugby tackling (its certainly how I picture what is written anyway)

But your point is very valid that what constitutes challenging for ball as a. GK as opposed to outfield are for. Obvious reasons very different.

As always with the posts YHTBT and we can only guide on what is written
 
PinnerPaul said:
On the upper v lower body argument - does that not change if its the GK as they can make an attempt to play the ball with their hands if the ball is above waist height for example, much more difficult, bordering on the improbable for an outfield player to do so though?
Click to expand...
In addition to "above waist height", the other common one is the goalkeeper diving to attempt to play the ball as an opponent runs in.
 
Kent Ref said:
White v blue is an under 14s game. 6-1 to the Whites. 30 minutes left to play.

White's player goes past the GK and he is 2 or 3 yards outside the 6 yard line and he's directly in line with the penalty spot with the ball at his feet. No player within 10 yards of him.

Blue GK grabs white player by the shoulders and brings him to the ground. A rugby style tackle if you will.

I blow the whistle and call the keeper over. Keeper asks me if that's a yellow. I say no - you made no genuine attempt for the ball.

CAR referee comes over and tells me i cannot send him off as it's "double jeopardy". I know he's a qualified referee. I explain to him that if a player makes no genuine attempt for the ball then it should be a red card in this scenario. As he's only qualified in the last 12 months i explain how "double jeopardy" works in law.

At full time a member of the away contingent says he's an assessor / observer and i was wrong in law and he will be reporting me. When i asked his name he refused ( i was curious to see if he actually was an assessor / observer).

Have i got this decision wrong?
Click to expand...
It sounds like a red card, and the CAR and Spectator have attempted to bully you about it. No genuine “qualified ref” as a CAR who gives a **** about colleagues would approach you in this manner, and neither would an observer. It’s all ******** and an attempt to dissuade you from your decision.
 
QuaverRef said:
I’m sorry but I don’t buy into that. You can’t simply just ‘forget you’re a CAR’ and even if you somehow do and think you’re an official assistant on the game, why would you walk on the pitch to argue a referees decision?
Click to expand...
Yes, I was adding to say exactly this. I've been an assistant on countless games over the years and I've never entered the pitch to speak with the referee during the game except when approached after a mass con.
 
Martiju said:
Yes, I was adding to say exactly this. I've been an assistant on countless games over the years and I've never entered the pitch to speak with the referee during the game except when approached after a mass con.
Click to expand...
I got told to step on when flagging game changing incidents by a higher level ref as a personal preference this is what happened in my game if you haven’t had that you will get it and yes I knew he was a ref as he refs on a Leauge near me so if you buy it or not it happens so I don’t want people to just assume the worst.
 
Unless I'm missing something, if the situation happened as described, I'd be deciding between excessive force/endangering the safety of an opponent and outright violent conduct, not DOGSO. Whilst the severity of sanction is the same for all 3, this may have implications with regards punishment by the league. It's important to be more precise I think. I cannot see how anyone grabbing an opponent by the shoulders and doing a wrestling style smack down, in no way competing for the ball, is anything other than VC. This is very different to a wild Kung Fu kick trying to get the ball at head height

What is double Jeopardy? Sounds like something off a tv gameshow, I have studied the laws from 1 to 17 and not come across this term??
 
Last edited:
refeire said:
Unless I'm missing something, if the situation happened as described, I'd be deciding between excessive force/endangering the safety of an opponent and outright violent conduct, not DOGSO. Whilst the severity of sanction is the same for all 3, this may have implications with regards punishment by the league. It's important to be more precise I think. I cannot see how anyone grabbing an opponent by the shoulders and doing a wrestling style smack down, in no way competing for the ball, is anything other than VC. This is very different to a wild Kung Fu kick trying to get the ball at head height

What is double Jeopardy? Sounds like something off a tv gameshow, I have studied the laws from 1 to 17 and not come across this term??
Click to expand...

Double jeopardy is a laymans term for pen kick AND red card, before the law change the offender would be dismissed for any kind of " last man" challenge automatically, where as now we have the ' attempt for the ball' proviso, allowing the award of the pk, and a yc, to suffice as punishment should a defending play be, unlucky. Not sure about other countries, but tv viewers in the UK need things explained in as simple terms as possible, aimed at the lowest common denominator.
 
Anubis said:
Double jeopardy is a laymans term for pen kick AND red card, before the law change the offender would be dismissed for any kind of " last man" challenge automatically, where as now we have the ' attempt for the ball' proviso, allowing the award of the pk, and a yc, to suffice as punishment should a defending play be, unlucky. Not sure about other countries, but tv viewers in the UK need things explained in as simple terms as possible, aimed at the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
There are other 'so called' rules as well.
Backpass being an example of one of them. Never been called that in law but is commonly referred to as
 
JamesL said:
There are other 'so called' rules as well.
Backpass being an example of one of them. Never been called that in law but is commonly referred to as
Click to expand...
Working as a Referee Tutor, I always add in a session about 'banned phrases' once you become a Referee .. includes, amongst others, 'Last Man', 'Back Pass', 'Bad Tackle' and even, (one for the purists!) 'Offside' .....
 
Anubis said:
Double jeopardy is a laymans term for pen kick AND red card, before the law change the offender would be dismissed for any kind of " last man" challenge automatically, where as now we have the ' attempt for the ball' proviso, allowing the award of the pk, and a yc, to suffice as punishment should a defending play be, unlucky. Not sure about other countries, but tv viewers in the UK need things explained in as simple terms as possible, aimed at the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...

Purely as an aside I have never been convinced of the double jeopardy argument.

The penalty kick is restitution, restoring that which was unfairly taken away. The sending off is the punishment.

But it is what it is.
 
Kent Ref said:
White v blue is an under 14s game. 6-1 to the Whites. 30 minutes left to play.

White's player goes past the GK and he is 2 or 3 yards outside the 6 yard line and he's directly in line with the penalty spot with the ball at his feet. No player within 10 yards of him.

Blue GK grabs white player by the shoulders and brings him to the ground. A rugby style tackle if you will.

I blow the whistle and call the keeper over. Keeper asks me if that's a yellow. I say no - you made no genuine attempt for the ball.

CAR referee comes over and tells me i cannot send him off as it's "double jeopardy". I know he's a qualified referee. I explain to him that if a player makes no genuine attempt for the ball then it should be a red card in this scenario. As he's only qualified in the last 12 months i explain how "double jeopardy" works in law.

At full time a member of the away contingent says he's an assessor / observer and i was wrong in law and he will be reporting me. When i asked his name he refused ( i was curious to see if he actually was an assessor / observer).

Have i got this decision wrong?
Click to expand...
Correct decision in my view. Well done.
 
Anubis said:
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,
Click to expand...
As somebody who could be classed as a goalkeeping coach I would say that this is a goalkeeping technique and would fall into the 'attempt' category of refereeing. I think the caution was spot on myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top