Attempt is the important word. Not pretending to attempt. My point was an ill-advised attempt is still an attempt and therefore YC - which is the situation I described.
But as as been previously pointed out to you, in the incident being discussed, the referee has judged there to be an intent. That's all that is required - your attempts to add extra conditions to justify your incorrect original assertion are wrong in law. You've now been told this multiple times and are continuing to try and perpetuate an incorrect way of thinking about this.
You're wrong in law and you've been told so by multiple posters. Again, this forum is an educational resource for a lot of referees, so it's important to make it clear that this is not "competing opinions", this is simply an incorrect reading of the law.
Semantically worlds apart. In reality, probably making the same decision on 99% of instances
I don't agree that he is so wrong. A futile thrust in the direction of the ball may not be found ITOTR to be an attempt.
But as has been pointed out, he's specifically disputing an incident described in a previous post. A description that includes the line "Diving to try and stop the ball at the attacker's feet". That should be sufficient to result in a downgrade to YC - the fact he seems to think it isn't shows a misunderstanding of the law.
This is all very fair. As you point out, he responds to a poster saying they went yellow with the implication that this decision was endemic of weak refereeing. I happen to agree with the decision - hence as a reader, I am also implied to be a weak referee. And all of that based on some (at best) very shaky understanding of the law in question - it can't be a surprise that a response is generated.
But "genuine" isn't in the law. Sure, we can all make up laws and then say the decision matches our invention, but that's irrelevant. The question is, was he diving at the ball or at the player?
For the avoidance of doubt, we are now not talking about the incident I described that kicked this debate off.
Providing that in the opinion of the referee there was a possibility to play it.
OK, but bear in mind that "play" is defined in the glossary as "action which makes contact with the ball". There's no requirement for a possibility of a legal play on the ball, so the downgrade should be applied if the ball is basically anywhere close to being in reach of the GK at any point in the tackling process, up to and including if the GK was always going to have to go through the attacker to get to the ball.
I agree with you. As above in my earlier psot. Was the ball there to be won? Yes. Then so long as there was an attempt to play it all good. If the ball is a significant distance away, that becomes less "playable" and of course the possibility to do so.
Interesting, very nearly exactly that happend here..... Blackpool v QPR - yellow given - probably lack of control by attacker and direction of play saved the GK here?
