A&H

Triple jeopardy - rule change coming?

The Referee Store
I think credit needs to be given where it's due, a ref that knows every foul or no foul, can mind read so knows whether there was intent to foul or not, to injure or not. I think rather than mock we should be open to learning from such divine wisdom.
 
Iain said:
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.
Click to expand...
Disagree with that. Many Reckless or SFP challenges are genuine attempts for the ball. Reckless or SFP doesn't necessarily mean intent.
This law change is a move away from outcomes based refereeing.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Many Reckless or SFP challenges are genuine attempts for the ball. Reckless or SFP doesn't necessarily mean intent.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm not sure that it really matters all that much. In terms of this new DOGSO interpretation regarding challenges inside the box, if it's SFP is still a red card and if it's reckless it's still a yellow.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Disagree with that. Many Reckless or SFP challenges are genuine attempts for the ball. Reckless or SFP doesn't necessarily mean intent.
This law change is a move away from outcomes based refereeing.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with this statement. In just about every case where we are judging "intent" we are actually judging outcome. When we look at "deliberate" handball we are actually judging not a player's intent but whether he held his arms in a way that was "natural". When a player kicks the ball to an opponent in an offside position we have to judge merely whether the player had time to play it....not whether he mis-kicked or not. If a player " deliberately handballs to stop an opponent gaining possession" (which merits a YC) we are judging only if he stopped an opponent gaining possession, not if he MEANT to.

So this new law will certainly be clarified to mean did we THE REFEREE believe that there was a genuine chance to play the ball, not whether the player thought so. After all, we already judge the difference between SFP and VC by whether we consider there to be a genuine chance to play the ball. This is just one more thing to judge.

Now of course this may make things harder for us as referees...more importantly the question is, does it make the game better? I have been running the line as club AR, then working as a qualified referee since 1976. When the so-called "backpass" Law came in (92 I think), I initially thought it was a disaster, ruining the game. I now believe it was a brilliant solution to a terrible time wasting problem. And those who berate the changes in the offside Law: I clearly remember the old days when I would flag 20 times or more a game...slow, dull, stop start football. Easier to understand perhaps....PIOP? flag, whistle, stop game. Yes, the new Law is harder on us, but it has created a fast flowing and brilliantly exciting sport...and this is from personal experience. We should be asking does this change make for a better GAME, not an easier job for us.

And finally, look at the way other sports (Rugby for example) constantly change MAJOR parts of their laws. Football is astonishingly careful in making law changes, and generally, very successful.
 
Ganajin said:
If a player " deliberately handballs to stop an opponent gaining possession" (which merits a YC) we are judging only if he stopped an opponent gaining possession, not if he MEANT to.

So this new law will certainly be clarified to mean did we THE REFEREE believe that there was a genuine chance to play the ball, not whether the player thought so. After all, we already judge the difference between SFP and VC by whether we consider there to be a genuine chance to play the ball. This is just one more thing to judge.
Click to expand...

So, if a defender deliberately sticks his hand out to stop the ball going into an empty net, it's not DOGSO on account of him making a genuine attempt to play the ball yeah? :D
 
Kes said:
So, if a defender deliberately sticks his hand out to stop the ball going into an empty net, it's not DOGSO on account of him making a genuine attempt to play the ball yeah? :D
Click to expand...

No. The first part of the revised law, which no-one has quoted yet, states that ANY handball whether in PA or not, that denies a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity, requires a send off (just as at present). Therefore pushing, pulling, holding or handball are all unchanged. And any offence that would usually incur a red card (excessive force, endangering safety) is also unchanged.
 
I think my interpretation will be if it's a tackle from behind that comes through the legs, there is no possibility of playing the ball. Any other foul tackle that isn't SFP I will class as a genuine attempt.
This rule has been criticised for years, and they've finally done something about it, but what they've done is not even remotely helpful, and has the potential to make younger refs stepping up adult matches quite intimidated when the players inevitably surround them and argue!
 
Give it a year and we may all be saying "well that wasn't as bad as we thought it would be". Or maybe the new law is pulled after an emergency meeting at the governing body. I think seeing it applied at the Euros will be a good indication of what a "genuine attempt" etc is, as the referees there will have been extensively briefed on what to look for. If there's confusion and chaos in the summer from Europe's leading officials, we can safely say we're in for a difficult season
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top