A&H

Junior/Youth What would you do.....

Difficult one as if the ball is 10-15 metres away you do have to ask how the foul occurred. If it is just two players getting tangled up then just a DFK, but if the defender has deliberately tripped the attacker it becomes more awkward. It can't be argued that it was a challenge for the ball as it was so far away, so then starts to fall into the VC category as any force is excessive force as he wasn't even attempting to play the ball.

Perhaps a little like Rooney's sending off at Watford last season?
 
The Referee Store
RustyRef said:
Perhaps a little like Rooney's sending off at Watford last season?
Click to expand...

Yes, or perhaps Jon Moss' dismissal of Xhaka against Swansea.
This could be anything from just a DFK to DFK with red card, as others have already said.
 
SLI39 said:
Yes, or perhaps Jon Moss' dismissal of Xhaka against Swansea.
This could be anything from just a DFK to DFK with red card, as others have already said.
Click to expand...
Sounds rather similar to Henri Lansbury's challenge on Marvin Johnson in the Villa vs Boro game. In this case (as there) it probably depends partly on how forceful the kick was, how high his foot was, were studs showing or not, etc when he caught the player.

Jeff Winter, despite being a fellow Boro fan, never was my favourite referee (and definitely not my favourite person) but I think his comments on the Lansbury incident were correct and would probably apply here also:
If Lansbury had just tripped Marvin Johnson then it would have been a yellow because it wasn’t a goalscoring opportunity. But he took it to another level by more or less kicking him.
Click to expand...
 
It's challenging for the ball in the same sense that IFAB pushed out the "genuine attempt to play the ball" in the penalty area for DOGSO (and now SPA)...

Despite the wording they used, the push really seemed to be "if the ball's in playing distance of either player, then go with the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a challenge".
 
AlexF said:
It's challenging for the ball in the same sense that IFAB pushed out the "genuine attempt to play the ball" in the penalty area for DOGSO (and now SPA)...

Despite the wording they used, the push really seemed to be "if the ball's in playing distance of either player, then go with the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a challenge".
Click to expand...
Alex, totally get that where there is any doubt at all, we should give the benefit of that doubt to the defender. Think the point Yampy is making (which I tend to agree with!) is that in the above case there is NO doubt about whether or not this a challenge for the ball!
 
Hi
In a DOGSO situation it would be a red card as it is not a genuine attempt to play the ball. I suspect some referees take a dim view of a cynical kick of an opponent when the ball is not even close. Sure remove the ball and it will be viewed as VC as a kick of an opponent.
 
AlexF said:
Despite the wording they used, the push really seemed to be "if the ball's in playing distance of either player, then go with the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's a challenge".
Click to expand...
I have to say I did not get that impression at all from anything that the IFAB has come out with. For me, the emphasis seemed to be that it must be a genuine attempt to play the ball. For instance, the wording (since removed, apparently in the interests of brevity/clairty, perhaps unfortunately) that the player making the challenge must have a possibility of playing the ball does not seem to tally with what you are saying.
 
Peter Grove said:
I have to say I did not get that impression at all from anything that the IFAB has come out with. For me, the emphasis seemed to be that it must be a genuine attempt to play the ball. For instance, the wording (since removed, apparently in the interests of brevity/clairty, perhaps unfortunately) that the player making the challenge must have a possibility of playing the ball does not seem to tally with what you are saying.
Click to expand...
The wording is one thing, the examples that have been shared with the 16-17 Law update by IFAB strongly lean to what I noted above.

The PGMO put out one that has a couple of challenges where the ball is within playing distance of both attacker but not really defender, and they leaned to keeping the card red in both of those cases.

The teaching edict that we got here in Canada leaned strongly to the side of "if it's a challenge with the feet, try to find a reason to caution, if it's a challenge with the hands, it's likely a dismissal".

And yes, I agree -- the wording has always been about a genuine attempt to play the ball. And in a perfect world, that's exactly what we'd be looking at all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top