A&H

Penalty and red card?

The Referee Store
Was i wrong in law for giving the pen and a red card?
Why don't you read the law first and then ask on here if you're still unsure? You need to understand the law BEFORE you go out there on the pitch and if you did, you'd know the distinction between DOGSO red and DOGSO yellow.
 
Sounds like you didn’t have a clue about the law change, if you did then you might have known where the manager was coming from.
I did know there Was a law change but didn't know 100% What exactly the change was
 
Does the fact that the attacker is dismissed for DOGSO not give you the answer to your question?
No, it most definitely does not. All kinds of wrong decisions can be made - the mere fact that they were made does not mean they were right.
PS I doubt it, considering the tackle as the OP stated was from behind
Admittedly, a tackle from behind means it's probably less likely to be an attempt to play the ball but I've seen plenty of tackles from behind that were attempts to play the ball. Illegal attempts perhaps, but attempts nonetheless.
 
I understand the word 'genuine' was removed from the wording quite recently
The word 'genuine' was never in the main wording of the law to start with. It was however, included in the explanation given in the 'Details of Law changes' section when the change was introduced in 2016 and perhaps because of that, along with the fact that it was frequently used in reports on the law change at the time, it seems to have to have entered common usage. I have even heard it used by members of the IFAB in press conferences.
 
This area where a referee has to decide whether an attempt to get the ball is genuine or not is very tricky.

I've seen a couple of videos from the FA but no real guidance on this from the FA.

I'm told red cards for DOGSO in the area is down by over half in the amateur game (last season).
 
The word 'genuine' was never in the main wording of the law to start with. It was however, included in the explanation given in the 'Details of Law changes' section when the change was introduced in 2016 and perhaps because of that, along with the fact that it was frequently used in reports on the law change at the time, it seems to have to have entered common usage. I have even heard it used by members of the IFAB in press conferences.


A similar case with "clear 'and obvious' error" for VAR. It was in the proposal, never used in the protocol/handbook but was later included in law.

Also "'far' exceeds" and "'complete' disregard" except that they were in law and we're removed later.

Being precise and consistent with wording seems to be an afterthought with IFAB.
 
In The Netherlands as well. Here you have to fill out a short survey with questions if player was injured, could he continue and as last Q describe the situation. Works well and much quicker than writing it all down.


Thats something that does not sit easy with me, the, could he continue speil.
Its all well and good for justifying a horrendous red card tackle that everybody accepts, it does seem to take weight off a red card tackle where the opponent was uninjured though
 
This area where a referee has to decide whether an attempt to get the ball is genuine or not is very tricky.

I've seen a couple of videos from the FA but no real guidance on this from the FA.

I'm told red cards for DOGSO in the area is down by over half in the amateur game (last season).

Is it that tricky though, thinking about it?

Its rare to see SFP or VC in the penalty area, handballs preventing a goal are obviously red every time and apart from holding to prevent an attacker scoring - again quite rare - most other challenges can be 'sold' as an attempt for the ball can't they?
 
While I wasn't totally convinced by the so-called 'triple punishment' argument (the suspension isn't part of the Laws, it's a matter for the competition authorities) I suppose it's worth noting that the decision to exempt an attempt for the ball from the harshest punishment (at least inside the penalty area) is by and large consistent with the spirit of the DOGSO amendment as originally submitted by the FA in 1990, which according to the IFAB meeting minutes was proposed as a way to punish only "the blatant or reckless act which eliminates an obvious goalscoring opportunity."
 
My take on the law changes is that they were intended to stop the cynical trips by the fat centre back who can't catch the speedy forward.

Basically, the same tackles which would be classed as stopping a promising attack in the middle of the park.
 
However, excluding the DOGSO YC clause inside the PA; any CRUEF offence punishable by a direct free kick is eligible for DOGSO or SPA
 
Careless Reckless, Use of Excessive Force
@one has posted a comprehensive list of secret codes under the abbreviations thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Back
Top