That has nothing to do with determining whether it's an attempt to play the ball.
That's a consideration for determining whether the situation is an obvious goal scoring opportunity... and applies to the ATTACKING player.
Sutton v Bromley 02.02.2018
- Thread starter OIREF!
- Start date
That's a consideration for determining whether the situation is an obvious goal scoring opportunity... and applies to the ATTACKING player.
one
RefChat Addict
@NorthLondonRef
Law 12: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball;"
I can see that in your posts you have agreed the goal keeper has attempted to play the ball (albeit a risky one). That would be sufficient ground for not sending him off.
Also form your posts I feel that you take the guilty until proven innocent approach.
There are numerous FIFA and FA educational videos on the 'new' DOGSO yellow, with many similar to this incident instructing to issue a yellow card only.
Although this is one of those which is ITOOTR and you are entitled to yours as the referee, for consistency sake I would recommend to opt for yellow if this happens in your games.
Law 12: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball;"
I can see that in your posts you have agreed the goal keeper has attempted to play the ball (albeit a risky one). That would be sufficient ground for not sending him off.
Also form your posts I feel that you take the guilty until proven innocent approach.
There are numerous FIFA and FA educational videos on the 'new' DOGSO yellow, with many similar to this incident instructing to issue a yellow card only.
Although this is one of those which is ITOOTR and you are entitled to yours as the referee, for consistency sake I would recommend to opt for yellow if this happens in your games.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
I think you have to distinguish between an attempt to play the ball and what type of attempt it is and a deliberate foul. I can go out right now and make 10 challenges that are attempts to play the ball but very bad attempts to play the ball and my intention is to bring down the attacker if I don't get the ball.
Maybe it's the new law change that I don't like and I'm looking at it through my preference of how these challenges should be called but I think there's a slight grey area or loop hole in between a genuine attempt to play the ball and mistiming the challenge and an attempt to play the ball and a deliberate action which fouls the opponent.
I personally don't like the law. So, outside the area a foul is a foul and action is taken regardless of if it's an attempt to play the ball. Attempt to play the ball but two footed dangerous tackle....red card. Attempt to play the ball in the area, bringing down the forward, denying a clear goal yet yellow card. Doesn't make sense to me.
Last edited:
Because the lawmakers decided a red card, penalty kick, and a suspension was an overly harsh punishment for trying to make a tackle to stop a goal scoring opportunity and simply mistiming it.
Since the goal scoring opportunity is returned to the attackers by getting a penalty kick, it was decided to be lenient when an attempt was made to play the ball. In this case, it did go from a >98% chance of a goal if the player isn't fouled to a ~80% chance on a PK, but most DOGSO decisions aren't resulting in a near certain goal and the team getting a PK is fair compensation.
But that same two footed challenge, while still an attempt to play the ball would also be punished with a red card within the 18-yard box, because it endangers the safety. It's just to avoid the triple punishment, which has already been discussed before.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
Morning lads. Going to spice things up a little bit with another incident, this time from my home of North London. Just a clip I remember seeing a few weeks ago from a local side. Start watching at 5:00 minutes. Now, I don't think it's a dangerous tackle. If you slow it down or stop/start it around the challenge, you can see whilst the keeping is running at pace, he's going with his side of his leg like he wants to make a clearance.
Should this be a red card? It's obviously not a penalty because it's outside the area but it's definitely denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. What would you guys says? So it's outside the area so you'd say red because it's denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity but if it was inside the area, you'd say yellow and penalty....right or wrong?
Should this be a red card? It's obviously not a penalty because it's outside the area but it's definitely denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. What would you guys says? So it's outside the area so you'd say red because it's denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity but if it was inside the area, you'd say yellow and penalty....right or wrong?
Havent watched the video but the premise of what you have said is correct.
We need to remember that when a team is awarded a penalty they have not been denied a goal scoring opportunity therefore a red card for dogso is not correct as the ogso has not been denied. Sure that attack is lost but replaced with another chance to score, in some cases a better chance.
Outside the area, the opportunity is lost. Its not often free kicks are scored. Even serial scorers of free kick goals only score a handful from multiple attempts, therefore, logically thinking a dogso has occurred and red is the correct outcome.
Obviously this is only instances where there was an attempt to play the ball..
We need to remember that when a team is awarded a penalty they have not been denied a goal scoring opportunity therefore a red card for dogso is not correct as the ogso has not been denied. Sure that attack is lost but replaced with another chance to score, in some cases a better chance.
Outside the area, the opportunity is lost. Its not often free kicks are scored. Even serial scorers of free kick goals only score a handful from multiple attempts, therefore, logically thinking a dogso has occurred and red is the correct outcome.
Obviously this is only instances where there was an attempt to play the ball..
That's the law now isn't it? So, it's right whether we think it is wrong morally or otherwise?
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
Just asking the question, but it's up to each individual referee to decide what's a genuine attempt to play the ball and what isn't.
one
RefChat Addict
Drop the word "genuine" and yes it is up to the referee. I am not sure where you are going with this. It is a fine line.... lets put it this way "referee's opinion" determines the outcome, the outcome the referee wants doesn't form the opinion. Its a slippery slope once one starts manipulating ITOTR to get what they think should be the outcome.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I don’t see how this is causing such an issue for you @NorthLondonRef, the law is extremely clear.
A foul inside the the penalty area that denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity which, in the opinion of the referee, was an attempt to play the ball is a yellow card (unless it is also SFP etc).
A foul whic denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity out side of the penalty area is still a red card.
A foul inside the the penalty area that denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity which, in the opinion of the referee, was an attempt to play the ball is a yellow card (unless it is also SFP etc).
A foul whic denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity out side of the penalty area is still a red card.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
This is a discussion. I'm expressing my opinion whilst asking questions. I am not going anywhere with this. I am not going to be silenced into submission because I look at this incident in a different way. RustyRef used the word "genuine attempt" and made the first post before I posted stating he understood the decision but it looked deliberate to him.
I'm not a slave or robot to the laws of the game. There is no need to drop the word genuine, given a player can have no intention to play the ball or can't make a realistic challenge or a challenge where he's likely to win the ball yet because it's an attempt, it means yellow
After the GK intentionally trips the forward with his late challenge, he then further trips him and brings him down with his arms stopping him getting to the ball. That completely compounds the issue. Red card and penalty kick. Simple. It's more of a deliberate foul than it is an attempt to challenge for the ball. That's not what the law is designed for. You've got to be able to decipher if it's an attempt to play the ball or a foul. That's a foul. So any attempt to play the ball is just a yellow? So a player can be running through on goal, and a defender slide and catch both his ankles, but it's an attempt to play the ball even though the attempt is mistimed, late, reckless and there is no realistic chance to win the ball in the situation? But because it's an attempt it's a yellow. NO. Of course not. There are attempts and there are attempts. If you aren't capable of working out what's what, then group all attempts together as "attempts". If you know the game well enough, you'll be able to spot what constitutes an attempt to win the ball and a deliberate foul. It can either be an attempt to win the ball and an accidental foul as a result of a genuine attempt or a deliberate foul designed to impede the attack or bring him down more than an attempt to win the ball.
one
RefChat Addict
Ease up. Didn't mean to offend you. If i did , I apologise.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
This is a forum. It's called a discussion and opinions. It's not causing such an issue, it's an opinion.
And the bolded part. In my opinion it's not an attempt to play the ball. It's a deliberate action to trip the attacker and then block him with his arms after the GK is put in an impossible situation. I don't care if the GK's reactions are slow, or he mistimes the "attempt" or whatever, when he sticks his leg out, the ball is beyond the GK by some distance and his challenge only serves one purpose and that's to bring down the attacker.
I'm not responding to this thread anymore, because it's clear this is like the old Soviet Union where you can't have a different opinion or see something differently.
Au Revoir,
I'm going for a stroll. I won't be visiting this forum again.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
Right that's it. I've just burnt my referee's kit, cards and everything. Throwing in the towel LOL!
I'm joking, but I have such skewed viewpoints sometimes because I was foremost a player at a pro club, then a referee that did a bit on the side to earn a bit of extra cash on Sunday mornings, then a coach, then a semi-pro player and coach, then a referee again whilst still being a player, coach, fan, referee.
I'm just messed up in the head, because sometimes I look at things through my own confused and conflicted eyes!
I apologize. I don't want to discuss this anymore, and I won't but if someone else like RustyRef wants to continue to state his point that he thought it was deliberate that's fine. But I'm outta here!
Have a good afternoon lads.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
You’re right.
@NorthLondonRef i apologise.
In the original clip the first time I watched it at full speed I thought is was a definite yellow, however, slowed down it looks less likely that the keeper had a chance of getting to the ball, so while I think I would be harsh I could understand a red card in that situation.
However, @NorthLondonRef, you go on about how this is a discussion forum but you seem in willing to listen to any views which differ from your own. And when people point out that the laws of the game back their interpretation you get defensive and start going on about “genuine” attempts, and whether the foul was deliberate, and how it’s not fair.
@NorthLondonRef i apologise.
In the original clip the first time I watched it at full speed I thought is was a definite yellow, however, slowed down it looks less likely that the keeper had a chance of getting to the ball, so while I think I would be harsh I could understand a red card in that situation.
However, @NorthLondonRef, you go on about how this is a discussion forum but you seem in willing to listen to any views which differ from your own. And when people point out that the laws of the game back their interpretation you get defensive and start going on about “genuine” attempts, and whether the foul was deliberate, and how it’s not fair.
The Sunday League one is a clear red card. Is it a foul? Yes. Are there covering defenders? No. Would the attacker have kept or retained possession of the ball? Yes.
I still personally think the Sutton keeper knew exactly what he was doing, but accept the views of those who think it was just a mistimed tackle. One of those that I would hope the observer would accept either decision.
I still personally think the Sutton keeper knew exactly what he was doing, but accept the views of those who think it was just a mistimed tackle. One of those that I would hope the observer would accept either decision.