Huddersfield defender receives a caution for this challenge on Vardy, in my mind this is not an attempt for the ball and should be red. Thoughts?
https://streamja.com/R2lM
https://streamja.com/R2lM
Last edited:
HUD - LEI
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
From the pic, red
Its not possible for the defender to get the ball there so it follows it cant be a genuine attempt
Guessing he got a yellow? As I posted last week, far too many refs hiding behind the change in law and giving a token yelow instead of the correct red
From the first pic, I actual thought it related to the gk, now, that looks more yellow than red
Its not possible for the defender to get the ball there so it follows it cant be a genuine attempt
Guessing he got a yellow? As I posted last week, far too many refs hiding behind the change in law and giving a token yelow instead of the correct red
From the first pic, I actual thought it related to the gk, now, that looks more yellow than red
The foul was a hand on the shoulder + standing on the back of Vardy's leg, no opportunity to play the ball for me.
I forgot to post the vid, it's there now, take a look.
There are a few things the video does add that I thinks help the defender's case - first is that he's clearly partially tripped by his own GK. That doesn't magically turn this into an attempt on the ball of course, but it does mean he hasn't just cynically jumped on the attacker and deliberately taken him down. I also think that despite being tripped, he stretches towards the ball and gets much closer to it than the stills imply, so there's a case for downgrading to yellow having seen the video.
Let's also not forget that the referee is human. Huddersfield are doomed, they're 3-1 down in this game and almost certainly about to let in another one - sending someone off when you don't 100% have to might seem a little bit too much like salt in the wounds?
Let's also not forget that the referee is human. Huddersfield are doomed, they're 3-1 down in this game and almost certainly about to let in another one - sending someone off when you don't 100% have to might seem a little bit too much like salt in the wounds?
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Seen the vid
Red
Anyone downgrading it channels nicely into the weak referee filter, too scared to give the correct sanction and hiding behind a law change.
Red
Anyone downgrading it channels nicely into the weak referee filter, too scared to give the correct sanction and hiding behind a law change.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
None of those factors are going to help the ref’s assesment. While cynical was the driver behind the creation of DOGSO (which was originally a kind of SFP), it’s not a part of the Laws—foul and situation (OGSO) are what matters, except for the minor carve out for a legitimate play on the ball. I fully expect the R was dinged for this call—and that it would be a send off with VR.
I mean, I think you're asking a bit much of the ref if you expect him to take the entire history of the DOGSO law into account when making this decision!
Got a video??
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
No, I’m asking him to apply the actual guidelines for DOGSO. You a trying to justify the decision with things that have nothing to do with whether or not it was DOGSO. (My point about cynical is that while it drove the creation of DOGSO, it has nothing to do with the current LOTG. )
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Link in the OP.
one
RefChat Addict
Alright then. Here is your full quote. It's clear your reference to the vid is unrelated.
So you say the foul is "hand on on the shoulder + sanding on ... leg". So does that mean each of those two parts are fouls or only if together they become a foul? Standing on leg is no doubt a foul for me (with or without hand on the shoulder). I am trying to figure out what does "hand on the shoulder" have to do with anything and why you should mention it in the context of a foul?
"no opportunity to play the ball for me" in your post I am guessing is only a reference to make it DOGSO once you have already established a foul. By the way this reasoning is no longer used in LOTG but I forgive you for using old reasoning on this occasion
"hand on the shoulder", or on the back, is something players usually say (see made up rules thread). My response is, that's not a foul. This being a referee forum I changed it up a bit in response to your post
. Yep it was a smart arse comment but as discussed in the other thread, sometimes smart arse comments are allowed
Last edited:
I'm actually not arguing that it isn't DOGSO - although incidentally, if it wasn't Vardy, I think you could make a pretty good case that the angle makes it a very difficult GSO, rather than an obvious one. Given it is Vardy, I think you'd expect him to bury it in his sleep from there and so DOGSO still should apply. So let's not start the whole discussion with you mischaracterising my argument please.
However it's in the penalty area - and the criteria for downgrading DOGSO in the PA from red to yellow don't require much. All they require is that the player made an attempt on the ball. I think that once you note that he's off balance when tackling (thanks to his own GK), there's enough of a stretch towards the ball in that final tackle that you can make an argument for downgrading.
One and only view, pen and no card
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
no card?
suppose can thank the clouds you least giving the pk !!!
where do you see a genuine attempt for the ball?
one
RefChat Addict
Attempt to play the ball (when giving pen) makes it a yellow. Nothing more nothing less. Let's use LOTG terminology here. Leave out 'genuine' or 'no opportunity to play the ball' or 'football challenge' (as used in Australia) or anything else. This is how myths start. So you could never be asked "yeah it was an attempt to play the ball but was it genuine?"
Having said that I think OP was red. No attempt to play the ball. Going yellow is likely a sympathy because he did not intend to foul the player (not a LOTG reason). The reason for the foul was that the defender was put off balance by his own goalkeeper.
Having said that I think OP was red. No attempt to play the ball. Going yellow is likely a sympathy because he did not intend to foul the player (not a LOTG reason). The reason for the foul was that the defender was put off balance by his own goalkeeper.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Just to clarify with my two esteemed learned posters - even if a genuine attempt for the ball, he's past the GK so has to be DOGSO, so has to be a yellow surely?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Not quite. Red is still called for if there is no chance to play the ball. And that was the case here.
Pg 108:
"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off. "