BVB Vs RB Leipzig

[JudgeDreadful]

Agree, and if you slow it down here the contact that causes the player to start to go over certainly appears to be (just) outside the area.

Also have to remember that he makes the VAR signal so must have given a penalty originally, and they will have the technology to see exactly where the impacting contact was. Interestingly though he then shows a red card but doesn't then appear to show a yellow card being rescinded.

View attachment 7015

I've found some other footage on Youtube. He does indeed give a penalty and yellow card first. The players have the ball on the spot while VAR is checking and they switch to the free kick and red card when confirmed. He's just forgotten to cancel the yellow card before issuing the red.

 

[Kent Ref]

The still also does not indicate the direction of the ball that he (the striker) had tapped in a completely different direction. I think this is quite significant in the overall decision.

What is a genuine attempt to play the ball in reality?

 

[socal lurker]

The still also does not indicate the direction of the ball that he (the striker) had tapped in a completely different direction. I think this is quite significant in the overall decision.

What is a genuine attempt to play the ball in reality?

The Laws do not include the word “genuine.” No way, no how do any authorities want to parse this in a way that makes that a red if it was a PK. Whether we should have a more subjective view is a different question, but itks hard to see any plausible argument for red and PK under current teaching—it’s a fould with the foot right near the ball. That’s a yellow and PK if it’s in the PA. (I’d even go si far as to say it should be reversed via VAR review if a red + PK had been given. I think it’s that clear.)

 

[Degnann]

If that was a penalty no way can it be a red. Irrelevant of what you think he knows he is doing hes mighty close to the ball here so can't see anything other than yellow as an attempt/challenge for the ball.

This all day long

 

[Big Cat]

It is a tactical foul regardless of the misleading still image. The defender absolutely knew what he was doing
Getting bogged down over thinking Law and missing what's plainly evident. This is where the rest of the game complains about Referees having a lack of understanding and so on

 

[socal lurker]

It is a tactical foul regardless of the misleading still image. The defender absolutely knew what he was doing
Getting bogged down over thinking Law and missing what's plainly evident. This is where the rest of the game complains about Referees having a lack of understanding and so on

Do they? The ”rest of the game” complained about the “triple punishment,“ which is why certain DOGSO in the PA is punished with a caution instead of a send off. The defender may well know whatnhe’s doing, but the Law is clear that if he brings down the player in an attempt on the ball, it’s a caution not a red. This isn’t a ref over parsing; it’s what the Law says and what is taught. (While in fairness i would probably be better on DOGSO to separate cynical and honest fouls for levels of punishment, that is more subjective and not what the Law req.)

 

[Big Cat]

but the Law is clear that if he brings down the player in an attempt on the ball

I know that FGS
There was a successful attempt to bring the player down. That's it. He has no chance of playing the ball and does remarkably well to get anywhere near it. If you're not seeing that, there's no point exchanging messages on the subject. I know what's written in our pamphlet... grrr
I tend not to get lost in detail. I just call a spade a spade. And this is a spade... despite it not being the usual push/pull offense we normally associate with 'no attempt to play the ball'. Forgive my bluntness, I'm aware that I'm inclined to be blunt!

 

[socal lurker]

If I got to make the rules and give the official guidance, I‘d be pretty much with you. I think what DOGSO should do (in or out of the PA) is distinguish between cynical fouls and ”honest” fouls. But that ship sailed when the powers that be decided ref’s weren’t willing to send off when they should and tried to build in more specific criteria (a sad trend in the Laws, but I digress). And as best I’ve been able to learn, the teaching at the top levels is more or less to treat every foot foul as an “attempt” if it is remotely near the ball. And that makes this, as best I can tell, an easy yellow in terms of expectations for the referees. Not a place the ref should be called out, but where the issue is in how refs are told they are supposed to interpret the Laws.

 

[RustyRef]

I know that FGS
There was a successful attempt to bring the player down. That's it. He has no chance of playing the ball and does remarkably well to get anywhere near it. If you're not seeing that, there's no point exchanging messages on the subject. I know what's written in our pamphlet... grrr
I tend not to get lost in detail. I just call a spade a spade. And this is a spade... despite it not being the usual push/pull offense we normally associate with 'no attempt to play the ball'. Forgive my bluntness, I'm aware that I'm inclined to be blunt!

Just can't see that logic. If he had dived in and missed the ball by a bigger distance I would agree with you, but he got so close to it I just don't see how it could be credibly deemed to be not a challenge for the ball. "I very nearly got my studs on it ref", "I know but it wasn't an attempt to play the ball, off you pop".

As it happens not relevant anyway once they worked out is was outside of the penalty area.