A&H

Open Age Penalty Clip

If we could all just relax a little bit that would be grand.

FWIW having attended many a CPD it is very rare that you get unanimous opinion, nor do we ever get it on here.

It is important though that our reasoning offered is consistent with law. If not expect to be challenged, be that in this environment, or in a debrief after the game.

@OldNavyRef there is no benefit of the doubt outcome here. You have to decide if it is an attempt or challenge for the ball and a yellow or a pushing offence which would be red. We dont have a safety option of, yes its a foul, but it's soft so I'll give a softer punishment. Not only is that not going to fly with an observer the 2 managers here aren't going to accept that either I can assure you of that.
 
A&H International
JamesL said:
If we could all just relax a little bit that would be grand.

FWIW having attended many a CPD it is very rare that you get unanimous opinion, nor do we ever get it on here.

It is important though that our reasoning offered is consistent with law. If not expect to be challenged, be that in this environment, or in a debrief after the game.

@OldNavyRef there is no benefit of the doubt outcome here. You have to decide if it is an attempt or challenge for the ball and a yellow or a pushing offence which would be red. We dont have a safety option of, yes its a foul, but it's soft so I'll give a softer punishment. Not only is that not going to fly with an observer the 2 managers here aren't going to accept that either I can assure you of that.
Click to expand...

OldNavyRef said:
Charging with his shoulder.

I give the foul but don't give the red because even though he charged the player he still tried to play the ball (imo).

It was DOGSO. So I wouldn't double jeopardy.

I am 99% sure it is a foul. Not sold on the red.
Click to expand...

Totally and 100% agree. I'd have gone yellow (with the benefit of watching it back).

The benefit of the doubt I mentioned was for him playing the ball. Which I believe he did. And possibly for the push, which I mostly believe he didn't.

Who knows, in real time I might have gone red. We will never know.

Onwards to our next debate!
 
this clip is hard to decide even watching it multiple times.

Another very fine line between tackling and fouling.
 
Genuine (pardon the pun) question - aren't both decisions here defensible in law? If your interpretation is that it's a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball, but ends up being misjudged in part because the other player is slowing down to shoot, isn't that pen & YC, whereas if your interpretation is a push, then it's pen and RC?

FWIW, on first watch at full speed, I thought the decision was spot on. Having watched numerous times subsequently, I can entirely understand why it would be YC instead of RC.
 
one said:
What if your interpretation is that it's an attempt to play the ball but it's not genuine?
Click to expand...
If my interpretation is that it was an attempt to play the ball, by definition it would be genuine. If I'd concluded it wasn't a genuine attempt, then it wouldn't be an attempt to play/challenge for the ball at all.
 
The Gump said:
If my interpretation is that it was an attempt to play the ball, by definition it would be genuine. If I'd concluded it wasn't a genuine attempt, then it wouldn't be an attempt to play/challenge for the ball at all.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that would make the use of the word 'genuine' redundant?
 
The Gump said:
Genuine (pardon the pun) question - aren't both decisions here defensible in law? If your interpretation is that it's a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball, but ends up being misjudged in part because the other player is slowing down to shoot, isn't that pen & YC, whereas if your interpretation is a push, then it's pen and RC?
Click to expand...
Yes they 'could' be defendable in law as it's a subjective decision. However if you give the wrong explanation then it could make your decision contradicting law. For example if you say he was attempting to play the ball but misjudges his challenge and eds up carelessly pushing the opponent, then that contradicts law. The laws considers a push not a challenge for the ball.

Not intending to open a concluded argument, but I'd like to see the laws explicitly add 'charge' to the list examples that makes it a red. IMO a charge implies the same intent as push/pull.
 
I'm a bit @nal about the use of the word because it can create confusion and unnecessary debate.

It has been discussed here before. The IFAB is to blame for this. When they first introduced the concept they used the word 'genuine' in the circular/proposal or whatever they put out. Then though they didn't use it in the law itself, they used it in the explanations of the change. Then a couple of years later they removed similar words like 'far' exceeds out of the law for the same reason 'genuine' shouldn't be used.
 
one said:
I'm a bit @nal about the use of the word because it can create confusion and unnecessary debate.

It has been discussed here before. The IFAB is to blame for this. When they first introduced the concept they used the word 'genuine' in the circular/proposal or whatever they put out. Then though they didn't use it in the law itself, they used it in the explanations of the change. Then a couple of years later they removed similar words like 'far' exceeds out of the law for the same reason 'genuine' shouldn't be used.
Click to expand...
Totally see where you're coming from.
 
socal lurker said:
I believe what is intended by the language is really a blatant, deliberate foul, such as simply taking out an opponent’s feet from behind. The core idea is to distinguish between a cynical play and at least arguably legitimate effort to play defense
Click to expand...
This was my understanding of the intent of the Law change (taken from historic thread posted above by @bester )
That's why I wasn't convinced the incident in the OP was a red card because the charge was not an egregious act of not challenging for the ball. As in upper body charging/challenges are not downgraded to SPA+PK)
I thought it was merely a charge, but then accepted the argument it also involved a push
I did not accept this was a binary, easy decision on which 100% of observers would agree. Far from it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top