The Ref Stop

New DOGSO law

K

Kent Ref

RefChat Addict
I watched the highlights of the 1st round of the league cup.

There were three penalties where i think the player who fouled the attacker in the area had no chance of getting the ball but all 3 ended up in a yellow card.

Is this new law just a cop-out for the pro game?
 
The Ref Stop
Yes.

I'm dreading both forms of DOGSO occurring this season - defenders will be furious to only see yellow in the area, but I guarantee there will someone on the team who's partially aware of the new law and will claim "Last man isn't red any more ref!" after he's hauled down an attacker.
 
The general guidance that I've been hearing passed down from more senior referees is to think 'above the waist, below the waist' when deciding on the correct card for a DOGSO in the penalty area. So, generally speaking, ALL offences above the waist, eg Holding, Pushing, Pulling and Handballs remain as Red cards but MOST offences below the waist will be tackles for the ball and are therefore now penalised as Yellow. Obviously there are exceptions to this, like a clear trip of a player with the ball nowhere near but a helpful rule of thumb to start your decision making process from.
 
Kent Ref said:
Is this new law just a cop-out for the pro game?
Click to expand...
Anybody who has ever watched a pro game knew that's exactly what would happen.




Russell Jones said:
The general guidance that I've been hearing passed down from more senior referees is to think 'above the waist, below the waist' when deciding on the correct card for a DOGSO in the penalty area. .
Click to expand...
Wow. Well, that's a disgusting perversion of the law. I guess that it's officially become the copout law then. Oh well, nobody ever actually accused a premier league referee of actually following the LOTG.
 
Mintyref said:
No, the referees must have considered that it was a fair challenge for the ball.
Click to expand...
Why would they give a penalty and a yellow card for a fair challenge for the ball? Wouldn't it have to be at least a careless challenge?
 
one said:
Why would they give a penalty and a yellow card for a fair challenge for the ball? Wouldn't it have to be at least a careless challenge?
Click to expand...

if it was a dogso in the box (when he makes an attempt to play the ball) then it's now considered a mandatory yellow card. Obviously if it's not a dogso and an attempt to play the ball it wouldn't be any card
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Wow. Well, that's a disgusting perversion of the law. I guess that it's officially become the copout law then. Oh well, nobody ever actually accused a premier league referee of actually following the LOTG
Click to expand...
Oh well, one person's 'disgusting perversion' is another's helpful simplifcation ;). Personally, I like the fact that it reinforces that all non tackling DOGSO offences remain a Red card even in the area. Of course there will be some (many?) referees that choose to 'cop out' from the correct Red card for tackles / trips with no chance of getting the ball ... but I'm sure they will be the same officials that already ignore dissent, OFFINABUS and mandatory cautions ....
 
Again not sure why there is any surprise over the way the law change is being applied by our professional game colleagues.

The whole change was driven by professional clubs and leagues solely for the purpose of preventing their highly paid players missing games for such offences.
 
Padfoot said:
The whole change was driven by professional clubs and leagues solely for the purpose of preventing their highly paid players missing games for such offences.
Click to expand...
And quite right too! There was never any sense whatsoever in the previous direction to give a Red card to a player (professional or otherwise) for a DOGSO in the penalty area, when that goal scoring opportunity was going to be restored through the award of a penalty in any case! An over the top punishment within the context of a single game, then made worse by the subsequent ban. Whilst we can (and should) debate the niceties of how the revised Law will now be applied, the principle of removing this unfairness in the previous system is a no brainer IMO.
 
I think the removal of the ban for "genuine attempts at a tackle" might have been an interesting first step to try. Maintain the red card in all cases and maintain a 1 or 2 match ban for cynical fouls and get rid of it altogether (including outside the PA) for anyone who's actually going for the ball. I've never liked the importance of the penalty area in determining the outcome of a match and this seems to be increasing it's importance unfortunately.
 
Russell Jones said:
And quite right too! There was never any sense whatsoever in the previous direction to give a Red card to a player (professional or otherwise) for a DOGSO in the penalty area, when that goal scoring opportunity was going to be restored through the award of a penalty in any case! An over the top punishment within the context of a single game, then made worse by the subsequent ban. Whilst we can (and should) debate the niceties of how the revised Law will now be applied, the principle of removing this unfairness in the previous system is a no brainer IMO.
Click to expand...

So you're quite happy for the LOTG to be manipulated and regulated by the paymasters of the Leagues and Clubs as opposed to the people who are actually charged with applying them?

The punishment was perfectly fine as it was.....if players didn't want to be banned....don't commit the offence...simples. But obviously not simple enough for a players intelligence to grasp?
 
es1 said:
if it was a dogso in the box (when he makes an attempt to play the ball) then it's now considered a mandatory yellow card. Obviously if it's not a dogso and an attempt to play the ball it wouldn't be any card
Click to expand...

But if it was a reckless attempt to play the ball, not DOGSO, still a yellow though and of course an attempt endangering safety of opponent and/or using excessive force, would still be a red, if DOGSO or not.
 
Russell Jones said:
And quite right too! There was never any sense whatsoever in the previous direction to give a Red card to a player (professional or otherwise) for a DOGSO in the penalty area, when that goal scoring opportunity was going to be restored through the award of a penalty in any case! An over the top punishment within the context of a single game, then made worse by the subsequent ban. Whilst we can (and should) debate the niceties of how the revised Law will now be applied, the principle of removing this unfairness in the previous system is a no brainer IMO.
Click to expand...

So when the attacker rounds the keeper and has an open goal - why on earth wouldn't you deliberately bring that player down? Caution AND you save a goal!!!
 
@Padfoot can you ever post anything without bringing a players intelligence into it? Its getting a little boring now.

@CapnBloodbeard this is a good point because this will actually happen. Take a keeper for instance, he knows he can come out in an all of nothing way and be safe in the knowledge that i either win the ball or give away a penalty but wont be sent off and i may just save the penalty. Worth the risk?
 
Cheshire Ref said:
@Padfoot can you ever post anything without bringing a players intelligence into it? Its getting a little boring now.

@CapnBloodbeard this is a good point because this will actually happen. Take a keeper for instance, he knows he can come out in an all of nothing way and be safe in the knowledge that i either win the ball or give away a penalty but wont be sent off and i may just save the penalty. Worth the risk?
Click to expand...

But, as I just said, if referee decides it wasn't a genuine attempt to play the ball OR it endangered safety of opponent, he/she can still dismiss - all options are there basically!;)
 
Padfoot said:
So you're quite happy for the LOTG to be manipulated and regulated by the paymasters of the Leagues and Clubs as opposed to the people who are actually charged with applying them?

The punishment was perfectly fine as it was.....if players didn't want to be banned....don't commit the offence...simples. But obviously not simple enough for a players intelligence to grasp?
Click to expand...

We're in charge of administering a game in the way we are told to. The LOTG are our Employee Handbook.

I believe they should have left it, and just removed the suspension.
 
PinnerPaul said:
But, as I just said, if referee decides it wasn't a genuine attempt to play the ball OR it endangered safety of opponent, he/she can still dismiss - all options are there basically!;)
Click to expand...
Yes i am well aware of that, but 9 times out of 10 a goalkeeper diving at feet will be a genuine attempt to play the ball.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
So when the attacker rounds the keeper and has an open goal - why on earth wouldn't you deliberately bring that player down? Caution AND you save a goal!!!
Click to expand...
In such a scenario it doesn't follow that the keeper's challenge is a deliberate attempt to bring the player down. I'd certainly be looking for a keeper to make some attempt to prevent a goal whether by fair or foul means. The new LOTG means that we, as referees, now have to make the decision on whether it is a fair attempt to play the ball. Sounds reasonable in theory but there's a lot of scope for interpretation and I can see many arguments arising from this change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top