A&H

penalty incident

The Referee Store
I think Swindon number 5 is a lucky boy. Player is already stumbling after riding what was potentially a yellow card challenge in its own right, and then gets cleaned out. I know this is a freeze frame and it's hard to see exact point of contact but the Swindon defender's left leg comes up after the initial contact and might catch the player again higher on the leg.

Wondering if the referee's view of this was obscured slightly by the Swindon number 24 running into the box?

You could even chuck in a shout for DOGSO given the relative positions of the other players, but the defenders are moving quicker than the attacker after the initial challenge (for which advantage was played).

1707909433285.png

On an unrelated note, I always assumed that GLT was in use across the whole EFL, not just Championship. Obviously hard to tell from this angle but looks like it's just about hanging over the line, if so it's an incredible call from the assistant.

1707908125887.png
 
Kent Ref said:
Now i re-think it no attempt to play the ball so DOGSO is relevant.
Click to expand...
i'd love to see this sort of challenge punished as dogso (no genuine attempt to play the ball). i hate how the 'get out' of a 'slide challenge'/challenge with the feet is used to downgrade more often than not
 
GLT is used in the Championship but not below that.

I think it is just about low enough to be reckless rather than SFP, and DOGSO is difficult as he isn't a million miles from the ball. Pity you can't add them up, there's an argument to say it should be a caution for reckless and another for DOGSO whilst attempting to play the ball, but no way law allows that currently.

I don't think the referee's position is textbook, he's looking through a couple of players and really should have moved a bit more to the left.
 
RustyRef said:
GLT is used in the Championship but not below that.

I think it is just about low enough to be reckless rather than SFP, and DOGSO is difficult as he isn't a million miles from the ball. Pity you can't add them up, there's an argument to say it should be a caution for reckless and another for DOGSO whilst attempting to play the ball, but no way law allows that currently.

I don't think the referee's position is textbook, he's looking through a couple of players and really should have moved a bit more to the left.
Click to expand...
Possibly his two armed Advantage signal prevented the quick move to the left?

Is this a case of no time to signal just use your voice?
 
RustyRef said:
Pity you can't add them up, there's an argument to say it should be a caution for reckless and another for DOGSO whilst attempting to play the ball, but no way law allows that currently.
Click to expand...
Taken from Law 12:

Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc.

Could potentially allow it? Athough the issue is that they were almost the same offence due to being the same foul
 
Gabriel said:
Taken from Law 12:

Where two separate cautionable offences are committed (even in close proximity), they should result in two cautions, for example if a player enters the field of play without the required permission and commits a reckless tackle or stops a promising attack with a foul/handball, etc.
Could potentially allow it?
Click to expand...
Wrong part of law.
Gabriel said:
Athough the issue is that they were almost the same offence due to being the same foul
Click to expand...
Yes, and what does the law say for simultaneously offences?
 
JamesL said:
Yes, and what does the law say for simultaneously offences?
Click to expand...
Alright, alright 😆. You punish the more serious one. Or more specifically, from Law 5 - The Referee:
  • punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time
 
Surely the best way to go about it would be just to sell the red as SFP, which you could probably just about justify. It does ‘feel like’ it should be a red, but strict application of the law makes it a yellow, and I think he has reached the correct decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top