Open Age Penalty Clip

[They're laws not rules]

Had this incident at the weekend. Interested in views as away club were adamant I was wrong. (pen was “soft” and red was wrong apparently)

Link (should start at correct time)

I gave a PK and a DOGSO RED for no genuine attempt to play the ball

 

[JamesL]

Had this incident at the weekend. Interested in views as away club were adamant I was wrong. (pen was “soft” and red was wrong apparently)

Link (should start at correct time)

I gave a PK and a DOGSO RED for no genuine attempt to play the ball

Think thats a spot on decision myself. The push is above the higher threshold for penalty (if not the attacker has done a great job).
Ticks all the boxes for a DOGSO and is not an attempt or challenge so a red card is the right outcome.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Had this incident at the weekend. Interested in views as away club were adamant I was wrong. (pen was “soft” and red was wrong apparently)

Link (should start at correct time)

I gave a PK and a DOGSO RED for no genuine attempt to play the ball

I think you made the right call. The attacker slows slightly, presumably as he wishes to shoot or control the ball better.

That doesn’t give the defender the right to clatter through the back of him.

 

[wazztie16]

The obvious extended arm makes it a very easy decision for me.

Had the defender just bumped into him, it might be a harder sell, but there's a very obvious push.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Agree with the above, correct decision to give the penalty and DOGSO red.

 

[RustyRef]

Agree with others, definite penalty, there's no attempt to play the ball so once given it can only be DOGSO.

 

[RonnieM]

100% agree with your assessment. The fact you see it in real time is lost by many as per.

 

[one]

Had this incident at the weekend. Interested in views as away club were adamant I was wrong. (pen was “soft” and red was wrong apparently)

Link (should start at correct time)

I gave a PK and a DOGSO RED for no genuine attempt to play the ball

Agree with others as well.

Only thing to add, the laws don't use the word "genuine" so I would refrain from using as well. Simply no attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball.

 

[JamesL]

Agree with others as well.

Only thing to add, the laws don't use the word "genuine" so I would refrain from using as well. Simply no attempt to play the ball or challenge for the ball.

Not entirely wrong as the explanation when the DOGSO/Pk yellow was introduced does talk about "genuine"
You know my thoughts on the explanations, I've aired them enough times.
Here is an example, people still use genuine because that's what they learnt/were taught when the law changed. The part that was entered into the laws themselves didn't include the word and now we pick each other up for saying genuine when it is now not in the laws, despite it being present in the explanation and therefore the teaching!

 

[one]

View attachment 7530
Not entirely wrong as the explanation when the DOGSO/Pk yellow was introduced does talk about "genuine"
You know my thoughts on the explanations, I've aired them enough times.
Here is an example, people still use genuine because that's what they learnt/were taught when the law changed. The part that was entered into the laws themselves didn't include the word and now we pick each other up for saying genuine when it is now not in the laws, despite it being present in the explanation and therefore the teaching!

We have had this discussion before. The word was also in the circular before that. But it is not in the current law. Just like the word "far" is not in the current law for exceeding force, in defining excessive force.

The reason I brought it up is so that we can avoid sticky situations.
Player: I attempted to play the ball
Referee: yes but it wasn't genuine

Is this a red card or a yellow card in a DOGSO?

 

[JamesL]

We have had this discussion before. The word was also in the circular before that. But it is not in the current law. Just like the word "far" is not in the current law for exceeding force, in defining excessive force.

The reason I brought it up is so that we can avoid sticky situations.
Player: I attempted to play the ball
Referee: yes but it wasn't genuine

Is this a red card or a yellow card in a DOGSO?

Slightly different in that "far" was actually in the law.

Genuine has never been in the law itself.
Back to my issue with "explanations"

I agree we shouldn't use it as it isn't in law, but if you know the history, it's understandable why people do.

 

[one]

Slightly different in that "far" was actually in the law.

Genuine has never been in the law itself.
Back to my issue with "explanations"

I agree we shouldn't use it as it isn't in law, but if you know the history, it's understandable why people do.

Oh I understood why the OP used it. But my advice still stands

 

[bester]

Its unfortunately a term still used in every FA training seminar, it's even added in when they're presenting of a screen with the actual laws of the game on.

 

[Big Cat]

'the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball'

Consistent with the overall desire to keep players on the FOP, I got the impression IFAB only wanted a player dismissed for DOGSO for egregious USB
Regarding the clip in @They're laws not rules OP
I'm not convinced this meets the new higher bar for a dismissal. Yes, it's a push, but the offender is merely 'careless' when challenging the opponent and did not shove the player with questionable intent
However, no doubt most observers would lean towards the thoughts expressed above and would rather see red as the push was with the arm as opposed to barging upper body contact

 

[JamesL]

'the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball'

Consistent with the overall desire to keep players on the FOP, I got the impression IFAB only wanted a player dismissed for DOGSO for egregious USB
Regarding the clip in @They're laws not rules OP
I'm not convinced this meets the new higher bar for a dismissal. Yes, it's a push, but the offender is merely 'careless' when challenging the opponent and did not shove the player with questionable intent
However, no doubt most observers would lean towards the thoughts expressed above and would rather see red as the push was with the arm as opposed to barging upper body contact

The challenge part was brought in because every upper body challenge was being deemed a send off. The law changed to recognise, and be consistent with the rest of law, that you can challenge fairly using the upper body.
In all versions of the law this would/should/could be considered as sending off offence

 

[RustyRef]

The challenge part was brought in because every upper body challenge was being deemed a send off. The law changed to recognise, and be consistent with the rest of law, that you can challenge fairly using the upper body.
In all versions of the law this would/should/could be considered as sending off offence

Agree, if he'd just barged into him I'd probably support a caution, especially as the attacker slightly slowed down. But the extended arm clearly pushing him over removes any wiggle room for me, there is no possible way that can be described as an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball. The defender has absolutely zero interest in the ball, he knows that a goal is imminent so just takes the attacker out.

 

[Big Cat]

The defender has absolutely zero interest in the ball, he knows that a goal is imminent so just takes the attacker out.

I don't agree with this telepathy bit, but I do accept that pushing with an outstretched arm is beyond the intent of the Law clarification.
In a sense, I'm glad the clip was posted because it means I've now thought about the nuances of 'challenging for the ball' before I'm faced with a similar DOGSO. I would've been looking for what I termed 'egregious USB', which in hindsight is not quite pitched right

 

[RustyRef]

I don't agree with this telepathy bit, but I do accept that pushing with an outstretched arm is beyond the intent of the Law clarification.
In a sense, I'm glad the clip was posted because it means I've now thought about the nuances of 'challenging for the ball' before I'm faced with a similar DOGSO. I would've been looking for what I termed 'egregious USB', which in hindsight is not quite pitched right

Whilst I agree that reading a player's intentions is dangerous grounds to be getting into, there are sometimes when you have to draw a conclusion. Especially with the new DOGSO law as the referee needs to determine if there was an attempt to play or a challenge for the ball, and that almost forces us to look at the defender's intentions.

 

[Big Cat]

Whilst I agree that reading a player's intentions is dangerous grounds to be getting into, there are sometimes when you have to draw a conclusion. Especially with the new DOGSO law as the referee needs to determine if there was an attempt to play or a challenge for the ball, and that almost forces us to look at the defender's intentions.

I'm in agreement with your point that this is a DOGSO red card (the unanimous viewpoint)
You can let go now!!!

 

[RustyRef]

I'm in agreement with your point that this is a DOGSO red card (the unanimous viewpoint)
You can let go now!!!

I was just explaining why I thought the new law almost forces referees to take a player's intent into account. Not sure I can let go of something I haven't got hold of