They usually come into effect July 1. World Cup years, they come into effect June 1. This year, they're being introduced June 1 so that the UEFA Euros can use them.
Triple jeopardy - rule change coming?
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
What's a genuine attempt? That's a massive can of worms. How on earth do you define that?
This just means defenders are going to have to ensure they're more careful about looking like they've at least considered the existence of the ball when taking out the opponent. Even a shirt pull could be an attempt at the ball if they've done a half hearted kick in the vague direction of the ball.
It's a mindblowingly bad addition. Seems to be added by people who have no understanding of the game at all.
This just means defenders are going to have to ensure they're more careful about looking like they've at least considered the existence of the ball when taking out the opponent. Even a shirt pull could be an attempt at the ball if they've done a half hearted kick in the vague direction of the ball.
It's a mindblowingly bad addition. Seems to be added by people who have no understanding of the game at all.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
If they follow the standard procedure, associations whose season is ongoing have the choice of delaying the changes till the start of the following season. I can imagine it would be fairly disruptive to try to introduce a whole new set of laws in the middle of a season. All the more so when there are so many changes - 94 of them, according to the article on the FIFA website (although some are no doubt just changes in wording rather than changes in meaning).
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
In this scenario, I think the decision should be "holding, pulling or pushing" + "no possibility for the player making the challenge to play the ball" = red card.
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
that's fair, and I was probably being a little over the top.....but it's going to be a nightmare.
It's basically going to mean that any challenge with a touch on the ball (or even vaguely near it) can't be DOGSO in the box.
Even charging through the player from behind to kick the ball is a genuine attempt on the ball, isn't it?
So basically, if the keeper is off his line it's a free for all. Do whatever you like to the strikers, just make sure there's a vague pretense of playing at the ball.
It's basically going to mean that any challenge with a touch on the ball (or even vaguely near it) can't be DOGSO in the box.
Even charging through the player from behind to kick the ball is a genuine attempt on the ball, isn't it?
So basically, if the keeper is off his line it's a free for all. Do whatever you like to the strikers, just make sure there's a vague pretense of playing at the ball.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
A lot of the posts seem to be implying that the rule change gives defenders carte blanche to make all sorts of challenges in the box with impunity. In fact, all of these rash challenges will still (as a MINIMUM) be penalised by a Penalty Kick and very often by a Yellow Card as well. Given that the PK conversion rate is so high .. last I heard it was around 85% in the Premier League for example ... I don't really see that there is any great incentive for making foolish challenges in the vast majority of cases. As for 'horrendous' challenges (as mentioned by @Padfoot), I'm sure these will still be given Red for SFP in the usual way .....
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Well I guess each of these challenges would fit the definition of a tactical challenge, so would have to be a yellow. If the laws were written with any sort of competence that would be a clause...
I would think that there would be many scenarios where the foul and yellow card is the better option for a defender to cop.
I would think that there would be many scenarios where the foul and yellow card is the better option for a defender to cop.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
No, it's still DOGSO, is just that if it's inside the box, the punishment will (in certain limited circumstances) be reduced to a yellow card and a penalty instead of a red card and a penalty.
If we're talking about the "triple punishment" scenarios outlined in the extract from the new laws (and I'm pretty sure we are) it's a minimum of a penalty and a yellow card. The only situation where there won't be a yellow card is if it meets the red card criteria.
I think if they were to be brought down I would give a yellow card anyway becuase surely it must then become a technical foul (unless they are pulling/holding/VC/SFP) but what is meant by making an attempt to play the ball. I would interpret that as a pass or cross so unless they look like they are trying to do that then they are not trying to play the ball in my opinion. Stupid law change!! Who makes the laws?
I agree. All this amendment will do at the top level is give the "expert pundits" (
) more to dribble and pontificate over on televised matches and, purely by it's subjective nature, simply make life at grass roots level more difficult for referees.What an absolute bunch of spoonheads our "elite" are.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Go on then....explain for the rest of us what a 'genuine' challenge is?
Possibly Brian.
I'm guessing the authenticity of any challenge during Premier League matches will have be decided upon by the TV "experts" later that evening as well. That way, we can all be 100% sure the referee got it wrong.
I think we all know that players can be divided into two main groups:
1: "not that kind of player."
2: "can be a little bit naughty at times."
I think it is safe to assume that all tackles by players in group 1 will be genuine tackles and so they should never be sent off for DOGSO or indeed for Serious Foul Play.
For players in group 2, in addition to establishing that they "can be a bit naughty at times" the referee should decide whether a tackle was "silly", "foolish" or merely "a little bit late"; the first two are obviously dismissals whereas the third is not.
A further category is where the player "has obviously tried to pull out of the tackle," a tackle committed under these circumstances should never be punished at all.
I hope that clears everything up.
1: "not that kind of player."
2: "can be a little bit naughty at times."
I think it is safe to assume that all tackles by players in group 1 will be genuine tackles and so they should never be sent off for DOGSO or indeed for Serious Foul Play.
For players in group 2, in addition to establishing that they "can be a bit naughty at times" the referee should decide whether a tackle was "silly", "foolish" or merely "a little bit late"; the first two are obviously dismissals whereas the third is not.
A further category is where the player "has obviously tried to pull out of the tackle," a tackle committed under these circumstances should never be punished at all.
I hope that clears everything up.
Last edited:
Iain
iaindw1
if i have to explain to you . Then you really should not be referring.
i do find it easy to work out when someone makes a genuine challenge to non genuine challenge.
just like i can work out when a player does a foul throw or not or player deliberately dives or not.
