Triple jeopardy - rule change coming?
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
How do you define a genuine challenge then?
This, for me at least, just adds another subjective element to the decision; in determining DOGSO, the referee now has to determine whether there is an obvious goalscoring opportunity, before then deciding on the intent of the challenge too. I totally agree that in some cases, a genuine challenge is obvious (a tangling of legs for example), but the element is too subjective to work!
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Before you begin "explaining" to him, you might want to check your spelling of the word "refereeing".
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Well....clearly there are a lot of us on here that shouldn't be referring......thankfully we are refereeing so it's all good!
What you really meant to say is that you, like the rest of us, haven't got a clue what a 'genuine' challenge is but were too scared to admit it.
Crack on then, explain how you differentiate between a genuine certified challenge and one which isn't genuine.
By the way, I'll give you a clue... if you think "Hmmm, I have to caution or dismiss for that", then it's not "genuine". I suspect that guidance will be written into the new LotG
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'm going to happily swim against the general tide on this whole issue. For me, the current triple jeopardy punishment is ridiculous, over the top and too often game changing. Something needed to be done and I'm really glad they will be taking this opportunity to do so. Whilst the proposed wording is a little inelegant, I'm confident in our ability to use our judgement to properly implement this. I'm guessing that at least 9 times out of 10 we will decide to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender and a PK / YC will suffice ... wouldn't expect too many incensed attackers in these situations as they'll be too busy debating who should take the penalty and being thankful at its award! Only on those occasions when defenders have cynically taken out the attacker (probably because he would otherwise have scored an easy goal rather than just had an OGSO) will a RC also be necessary. I say, bring it on 
Kes
I'll Decide ...
I'm going to happily swim against the general tide on this whole issue. For me, the current triple jeopardy punishment is ridiculous, over the top and too often game changing. Something needed to be done and I'm really glad they will be taking this opportunity to do so. Whilst the proposed wording is a little inelegant, I'm confident in our ability to use our judgement to properly implement this. I'm guessing that at least 9 times out of 10 we will decide to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender and a PK / YC will suffice ... wouldn't expect too many incensed attackers in these situations as they'll be too busy debating who should take the penalty and being thankful at its award! Only on those occasions when defenders have cynically taken out the attacker (probably because he would otherwise have scored an easy goal rather than just had an OGSO) will a RC also be necessary. I say, bring it on
Terrible decision there Russell. Terrible. Your swimming against the tide that is.
Mind a passing shark doesn't stop and take a chomp out of you.......
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
I'm going to happily swim against the general tide on this whole issue. For me, the current triple jeopardy punishment is ridiculous, over the top and too often game changing. Something needed to be done and I'm really glad they will be taking this opportunity to do so. Whilst the proposed wording is a little inelegant, I'm confident in our ability to use our judgement to properly implement this. I'm guessing that at least 9 times out of 10 we will decide to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender and a PK / YC will suffice ... wouldn't expect too many incensed attackers in these situations as they'll be too busy debating who should take the penalty and being thankful at its award! Only on those occasions when defenders have cynically taken out the attacker (probably because he would otherwise have scored an easy goal rather than just had an OGSO) will a RC also be necessary. I say, bring it on
So it's open season on attackers as long as the defenders can put on a contrite face and protest that they 'went for the ball' because we're going to give them the benefit of the doubt.......
Think I'll go the other way....I won't give them any benefit of doubt and will consider every challenge as 'non-genuine' thereby dismissing every time......every bit as valid as assuming every challenge is 'genuine'.
Oh but then I will fall foul of LWR who gave them the benefit of the doubt.......
Glad the situation has been made so much easier for us who have to implement it amongst the drunken troglodytes of grassroots football!
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
That's enough of that.
If you can't see the massive can of worms opened by 'genuine' then.....yeah, not going to say it.
'Deliberately dives' has areas open to interpretation as well (such as a dive with contact, or simultaneous dive and foul).
'Genuine attempt' - could be interpreted a number of different ways. Is a slide tackle from behind that goes through the player but touches the ball (ignore SFP for a moment) a genuine attempt for the ball? Etc etc.
It introduces another highly subjective element into the game, and we're going to see more referees who simply never send off players for DOGSO. Which is going to make it much, much harder to actually send a player off and maintain match control (which, if you're a 'match control defines all your decisions' sort of referee...well, you can imagine how the 'club marks' referees are going to interpret this)
The interesting thing is that this actually directly contravenes the old 'reason' for DOGSO. The LOTG stated at some point that the reason for a red card for DOGSO was that the act of denying an opponent an OGSO by foul means was quite a heinous act. The implication is that even a careless foul is, at some level, intentional and if it was a genuine attempt, it wouldn't be a foul - hence, justifying a careless foul DOGSO red card. This interpretation directly contravenes that.
Personally, I don't think the 'triple punishment' is really an issue. Every red card foul has a 'triple punishment'.
PK? That's just how the balance is restored, acknowledging that anywhere in the PA is shooting distance, which is why it's different to a FK. Red card? Well, it's necessary for the deterrent - if DOGSO was a yellow card, why wouldn't you try it? Suspension? Without that, there would be no harm in getting yourself sent off in the last 5 minutes.
Last edited:
I think this may be the most entertaining aspect to the proposed change.
If a foul is committed close to the edge of the area and the players are not sure whether the ref will think it's a) DOGSO and b) a "genuine attempt to play the ball" you could potentially have players from both teams appealing for in and outside the area. Maybe there will be complicated and lengthy appeals: "Come on ref, I know it was 'last man' but he went for the ball and it was inside the box!"
Or maybe players' brains will explode with the complicated permutations - "I reckon the ref thought it was a DOGSO, not sure if he thought it was a genuine tackle, it was close to the edge of the area so do I appeal in or out? Hmm...it's also the 85th minute of the game and we're 1-0 up so is it better to BOOM!!!"
Kes
I'll Decide ...
I think that after two years of complete inconsistency and randomness at the top level, our brain dead elite will be forced to concede that they made a stupid mistake and bin the idea.
Of course, they won't simply revert back to "as was". They'll fiddle and tweak and twist again - giving referees yet another dumb set of parameters within which to try and operate when making a decision.
They're like politicians - concocting idiotic legislation which they themselves don't have to implement or take the flak for when it goes pear-shaped.
Of course, they won't simply revert back to "as was". They'll fiddle and tweak and twist again - giving referees yet another dumb set of parameters within which to try and operate when making a decision.
They're like politicians - concocting idiotic legislation which they themselves don't have to implement or take the flak for when it goes pear-shaped.
Last edited:
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Come come now, I can't imagine you as the kind of referee who would be swayed by such transparent nonsense
. YOU will decide whether the challenge was cynical or unlucky, in exactly the same way as you currently decide whether a challenge is careless or reckless. And the point that everyone seems to be ignoring is that the current DOGSO wording (when applied to challenges in the area) is deeply unhelpful and against the spirit of the game. Currently, a challenge that might be deemed simply careless and unworthy of a card in another part of the pitch is penalised by a Red Card because it has denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity ... which is in any case going to be replaced by an equally good goalscoring opportunity, ie a penalty! Utter nonsense, illogical and potentially ruining a good game of football. Which, as we all know, should be our job instead CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Iain
iaindw1
Good post Russell Jones. Cynical or unlucky. Referees are able to decide if its a careless-no caution or reckless- caution. then you should be able to decide if a challenge was genuine or not. Genuine challange=careless. Maybe they should say in a DOGSO situation then if ref decides its careless then yellow but no sending off. If its reckless-then red.
SM
The avuncular one
Players and pundits have enough trouble with careless, reckless and excessive force as it is without you adding differing punishments for different situations. No good can come of it.