New FA PGMO DOGSO presentation

[AlexF]

Was passed this video link tonight from an FA email. ~15minute video from PGMO, quite interesting, and looks to be a fantastic resource.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nriahqxz75vindi/PGMO Conference 2016 Workshop - DOGSO.mp4?dl=0

 

[es1]

I saw it last night. It's good but the one thing it doesn't do is give examples of tackles where they consider the defender didn't have a chance of winning the ball.

 

[Padfoot]

I saw it last night. It's good but the one thing it doesn't do is give examples of tackles where they consider the defender didn't have a chance of winning the ball.

Because there aren't going to be any at that level......

Don't forget it's been largely the professional clubs pushing for this law change, so it's obvious that that the PGMO, who are paid by the Premier League, are going to be 'encouraged ' to apply it to the fullest degree possible.

I've said all along that there will be no halfway measures with the change.....referees will either never give a red in the relevant DOGSO situation again, or they will carry on as before......it is simply too ridiculous, especially at grassroots level, to expect a referee to make consistent decisions about what is and what isn't a 'genuine' attempt at winning the ball without risking their match control......which is what will lead referees into the all or nothing camps.

 

[WalterPinkman]

Helped me understand a lot better, thanks for sharing

 

[Padfoot]

Having watched the video......what an absolute abortion.......it's just the PGMOL introducing their own fictious wording in an attempt to influence how officials apply the revised Law.

"If a player commits a careless or reckless challenge......it's now a caution and PK, instead of a red card".......So every careless or reckless challenge is considered to be a genuine attempt to play the ball?
What utter garbage.

The law revision will just make life harder for referees as it will be the single biggest incident of "last weeks ref..."......

 

[bloovee]

I know it's blue-tinted specs time but 11.45 doesn't like a mistimed tackle to me!

 

[David Kelly]

Hi by any chance did anyone download and save the presentation in the above link.if so could they provide a link to it in their dropbox account, as the above link is no one working. Thanks

 

[Kent Ref]

Why is this now a yellow card (according to that video):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz34bUyn7vM

Where is the genuine attempt to play the ball?

 

[RustyRef]

Why is this now a yellow card (according to that video):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz34bUyn7vM

Where is the genuine attempt to play the ball?

Because they have viewed that the keeper has come out to play the ball but mistimed it. That was the one I got wrong on the presentation as I had that down as red, but I can see why they say yellow.

 

[holbeach ref]

Sorry don't agree, for me this is still a red

 

[CA]

Hi by any chance did anyone download and save the presentation in the above link.if so could they provide a link to it in their dropbox account, as the above link is no one working. Thanks

I have it, just uploading it to my Dropbox now. Will post a link on this comment once upload has been completed.

Here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uir0x4bs95tllf1/PGMO Conference 2016 Workshop - DOGSO.mp4?dl=0

 

[bloovee]

Surely all this does is revert to the concept of "intent". Once, not so long ago, if it was a genuine attempt to play the ball, it would need to be more than just mistimed to be a foul at all. What now constitutes a foul hasn't changed - but if the defender attempted to play the ball, then inside the area there's no red card. Judging "intent" was always odd - how can the referee decide what a player really intended? But "realistic attempt to play the ball" now is a practical substitute for intent. And the illustration at 11.45 on in the video looks to me like no attempt to play the ball at all, and should still be a red (not the blue tinted specs - he's nowhere near the ball).