A&H

Keepers and DOGSOs

K

Kent Ref

RefChat Addict
Did a game yesterday (under 18s) where both keepers fouled an opponent with DOGSO.

On one there was a clear attempt to get the ball but got the attacker first by a fraction of a second.

On the second the keeper got the attacker with his feet (a bit like the one in the PGMO Dogso video chelsea keeper v Man city 12 mins in) .

www.dropbox.com/s/uir0x4bs95tllf1/PGMO%20Conference%202016%20Workshop%20-%20DOGSO.mp4?dl=0

For me it was not a genuine attempt to get the ball BUT the video says it is a yellow card. In my my heart i wanted to show red but:

This video tells me not to

AND

Both teams would be possibly confused if i sent one off and not the other.

Asking a referee for opinions like the FA does now is dangerous as inconsistency causes chaos!

I'd love some opinions.
 
The Referee Store
The joys of the new laws. :)

Assuming the first incident happened in the penalty area, if you are happy that it was a genuine attempt to get the ball and realistic he could get the ball, then caution and penalty.

If you felt the second was clearly not a genuine attempt to play the ball or there was no realistic chance of getting the ball, then red and penalty. I take your point though, brave decision - teams will choose not to understand even if they know the law change :)

What was the score at the time?
 
SM said:
The joys of the new laws. :)

Assuming the first incident happened in the penalty area, if you are happy that it was a genuine attempt to get the ball and realistic he could get the ball, then caution and penalty.

If you felt the second was clearly not a genuine attempt to play the ball or there was no realistic chance of getting the ball, then red and penalty. I take your point though, brave decision - teams will choose not to understand even if they know the law change :)

What was the score at the time?
Click to expand...

Its going to happen in a "high profile" match at some stage - can't wait to hear the "expert" pundits when it DOES happen!
 
PinnerPaul said:
No I suppose not - at least that way you will be consistently wrong!:eek:

Can't believe you wrote "ignore the law change"!
Click to expand...

Quite simply because this is the confusion that was pretty much expected when the law change was announced.

The whole "genuine attempt to play the ball" bit is a massive gaping pit into which your consistency, and thus credibility, is waiting to be tossed. So to try and salavage a shred of consistency/credibility referees are largely going to have view every challenge as a "genuine attempt to play the ball"...or not.

The law change will probably be more credibile at the elite level, where after 25 replays from every possible angle it will be concluded that the referee was right, but at grassroots level on a Sunday morning with lone referees it is a nightmare waiting to happen. Which is where the referees will be more inclined to adopt a blanket approach in an attempt to protect their match control.
 
Padfoot said:
Quite simply because this is the confusion that was pretty much expected when the law change was announced.

The whole "genuine attempt to play the ball" bit is a massive gaping pit into which your consistency, and thus credibility, is waiting to be tossed. So to try and salavage a shred of consistency/credibility referees are largely going to have view every challenge as a "genuine attempt to play the ball"...or not.

The law change will probably be more credibile at the elite level, where after 25 replays from every possible angle it will be concluded that the referee was right, but at grassroots level on a Sunday morning with lone referees it is a nightmare waiting to happen. Which is where the referees will be more inclined to adopt a blanket approach in an attempt to protect their match control.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, well reasoned argument, but IMHO, its a slippery slope once you decide what laws you are going ignore.
 
Because I'm one of those referees I've learned that are going for promotion that ignoring laws for teams is not going to get you anywhere yea a big hole is going to be created every time but as someone said to me your going to have a dogso every 1-10 games
 
ref craig said:
Because I'm one of those referees I've learned that are going for promotion that ignoring laws for teams is not going to get you anywhere yea a big hole is going to be created every time but as someone said to me your going to have a dogso every 1-10 games
Click to expand...

Really? I have had 1 DOGSO in 5 years!!
 
Kent Ref said:
Did a game yesterday (under 18s) where both keepers fouled an opponent with DOGSO.

On one there was a clear attempt to get the ball but got the attacker first by a fraction of a second.

On the second the keeper got the attacker with his feet (a bit like the one in the PGMO Dogso video chelsea keeper v Man city 12 mins in) .

www.dropbox.com/s/uir0x4bs95tllf1/PGMO%20Conference%202016%20Workshop%20-%20DOGSO.mp4?dl=0

For me it was not a genuine attempt to get the ball BUT the video says it is a yellow card. In my my heart i wanted to show red but:

This video tells me not to

AND

Both teams would be possibly confused if i sent one off and not the other.

Asking a referee for opinions like the FA does now is dangerous as inconsistency causes chaos!

I'd love some opinions.
Click to expand...
Looking at the video initially it is a genuine attempt to play the ball but then he slightly lifts his leg to trip the attacker when his leg misses the ball but you won't see that unless you have slow motion replays. Give what you see. Be consistent in your own game. If anyone challenges you about a decision made the previous week just tell them that you weren't there and you didn't make that decision (unless of course it was you, in that case damn you for your inconsistency ;) ).

Don't ignore the law, just be consistent in your interpretation and if an observer says you got it wrong tell them, from your position and your proximity to the incident (which I hope will be better than the observer's), it was a genuine attempt to play the ball.
 
You need to think about your credibility, and unless the challenges by both keepers are VASTLY different you are going to have real problems if you send one off and leave the other on.

Padfoot is right to an extent in that it does put the referee under more pressure as intent has to be judged, and also that these decisions will be much easier at the top level than at parks level where the referee has zero evidence to back him up. I can't agree with his advice to ignore the new law though ..!

Personally I will need a high level of confidence that there was not a genuine attempt to play the ball to send the offender off, and the benefit of any doubt will go in the defender's favour. These incidents often happen in a flash - if it is a push or a pull it will be fairly easy to judge intent, not so if it is a trip with both players moving at speed.
 
RustyRef said:
You need to think about your credibility, and unless the challenges by both keepers are VASTLY different you are going to have real problems if you send one off and leave the other on.

Padfoot is right to an extent in that it does put the referee under more pressure as intent has to be judged, and also that these decisions will be much easier at the top level than at parks level where the referee has zero evidence to back him up. I can't agree with his advice to ignore the new law though ..!

Personally I will need a high level of confidence that there was not a genuine attempt to play the ball to send the offender off, and the benefit of any doubt will go in the defender's favour. These incidents often happen in a flash - if it is a push or a pull it will be fairly easy to judge intent, not so if it is a trip with both players moving at speed.
Click to expand...

Can a "push/pull" EVER be a genuine attempt to play the ball - surely they ARE DOGSO every time?
 
tbh - you are the one deciding on intent!

IMHO ... ill only be sending off for 'no attempt to play' if I know 150% that the player has went in with the main intention of stopping the attack/shot
 
Charlie Jones said:
IMHO ... ill only be sending off for 'no attempt to play' if I know 150% that the player has went in with the main intention of stopping the attack/shot
Click to expand...
Which based on what I'm hearing on here and elsewhere, is likely to be the approach of the vast majority of referees. So, who knows, maybe we'll actually deliver on the eternal quest for "consistency" :rolleyes:
 
Russell Jones said:
Which based on what I'm hearing on here and elsewhere, is likely to be the approach of the vast majority of referees. So, who knows, maybe we'll actually deliver on the eternal quest for "consistency" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Apart from when you consider the referees who will go the other way and decide to interpret each challenge as not a genuine attempt to play the ball.....which is the far better approach.

Deciding to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender will simply invite more questionable challenges in and around the penalty area as to a players logic it will make sense because they are only going to get cautioned for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top