A&H

3 Incidents - Opinons

micky2001

micky2001

Well-Known Member
Seen this video on YouTube from a game a month or so ago in the Scottish Juniors and wanted your opinions on 3 incidents. Feel the referee can be supported in all of them but would like a little debate on here to see if we all agree.


1:25 - Penalty or Not? And what card are you giving and what would be the reason for the card (SFP, DOGSO etc?)

2:10 - Play on or retake? Any cards in the aftermath?

3:20 - What is your decision on this tackle? Second yellow or straight red?

Thought it was a really good game which the ref handled well. Feel that his decisions were good in such a tough match.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Great video - thanks for posting and encouraging debate :)

1:25
  • yes pen
  • red for DOGSO (attacker 1 on 1 with a defender, no GK)
  • if GK moans suggest he is lucky you're not putting it through as serious foul play (longer ban) for the 2 feet off the ground lunge
2:10
  • slowed down there is a big case for a re-take - but - very brave referee to give it (no-one is expecting a re-take)
  • excited handbags in the melee - happy no cards
  • looks like a goal was scored from the resulting corner - all is forgiven :)
3:20
  • yellow is sufficient - regardless of whether first or second card
 
To start with - nice sprint to the centre circle. Lets recommend at all levels...
1:25 - Definite penalty, he led with studs so red correct. PIADM.
2:10 - Definite re-take - 3 yards out, two steps not even close....
NO need for any cards, well handled in talking to players
3:20 - Second Yellow.
 
1:25 - penalty. Definite red, either for DOGSO or SFP
2:10 - should have been a retake, the keeper was almost three yards off his line and saved it because of that. However, reds seemed to want a corner and so I can see why following the "no surprises" school of refereeing he didn't order one. I wouldn't have given cards in the aftermath.
3:20 - yellow looked fine.
 
Yes, two footed, off the floor = out of control = PIADM.

Your reasons for not?
 
1) That is NOT DOGSO, the player direction of travel was 20 yards wide of the goal. Certainly SFP, missed the change to LOTG where PIADM is one of the RC offences!!
2) Pen Should be retaken
3) no way is that mass confrontion not seeing at least ONE yellow card, you cannot let that incident go unanswered.
4) Looks harsh to me but my angle is crap and he might have been doing it all game so I cannot judge.

I was sickened to see these dirty foreigners running to the ref to try and get opponents sent off.... you'd never see that in Britain... :rolleyes:

lincs22 said:
Yes, two footed, off the floor = out of control = PIADM.

Your reasons for not?
Click to expand...
So you're awarding an IDFK then?
With the greatest respect, A supply League assessor should know the book better.

PG121:
"Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the
players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable
with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the
referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also
been committed."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
deusex said:
So you're awarding an IDFK then?
With the greatest respect, A supply League assessor should know the book better.

PG121:
"Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the
players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable
with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the
referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also
been committed."
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Brain no in footballing mode, too busy at work:eek:
 
He could have earned some brownie points by playing advantage when the yellow scored the 45+ yard goal, hand across the neck!

1st incident; pen and SFP red card.
2nd incident; should be a retake but clever in waiting and seeing the reaction. Surprised no reds called for it! I think the referee is lucky it didn't kick off more in the goal mouth.
3rd incident; yellow.
 
1. SFP, red card
2. Retake. Cautions to Red 9 and yellow 11 after a quick chat to AR (thumbs up to AR for coming in)
3. Its a poor camera angle. Second caution would do.
 
1. Definite penalty. I'm not convinced about DOGSO, I think he was putting himself into too slight an angle. Looks like SFP but I'd like to have seen the point of contact. While I certainly don't think angling away automatically means no DOGSO, I think this one was moving more 'away' than 'towards'. But then again, the ball was still in controllable distance, and when he would have reached the ball he was within shooting range and angle with only 1 defender. So I guess I'm not too opposed to DOGSO here. That raises another question though - if it's both, which do you report it as?

2)Easy retake. I can see 2 red cards - 1 for pushing a player to the ground, another for hands on the throat.

3)Can't tell anything from the camera shot.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
That raises another question though - if it's both, which do you report it as?
Click to expand...
Interesting. The referee obv 'punishes the more serious offence when a player commits more than one offence at the same time'. While Law 12 appears to list them in descending order of seriousness, it doesn't say so. Games suspended is a matter for the authority rather than the LOTG, so are the RC offences equal in the eyes of the Law?
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
So I guess I'm not too opposed to DOGSO here. That raises another question though - if it's both, which do you report it as?
Click to expand...
Simple, you report what you dismissed for (DOGSO or SFP if you didn't feel that it was DOGSO). Then, in your written portion of the report you note that it was DOGSO because of X, Y, Z, but in doing so, the player committed a tackle/etc that would have been considered SFP in any other circumstance.

Give all of the information, let the disciplinary committee make the decision.
 
I think the question is, if you thought it was both DOGSO and SFP, would you write in your report:
"It was DOGSO because of X, Y, Z, but in doing so, the player committed a tackle/etc that would have been considered SFP in any other circumstance"
OR
It was SFP because of X, Y, Z, but in doing so, the player committed DOGSO in any other circumstance.

My answer would be you dismiss for what you think is the more serious offence. In this case SFP in my opinion, but you would report that DOGSO was also committed at the same time.
 
1;25 Red card (SFP) two footed challenge
2;10 Retake PK. Keeper yards off the goal line allowing him to effect he save. Cards in that situation Probaly not
3;20 Caution is all thats needed in this case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top