Amiens v Lyon

[alexgr]

First goal (penalty) - turns out the player clipped his own heels, but regardless of that, how can the ref only give a yellow here? Surely it's got to be a red. Not sure how you can claim that is a genuine attempt to go for the ball.

First thing on these highlights -

 

[one]

W#3's knee contacted O#10 left foot pushing it slight to right causing him to clip his right foot.

It happened in the process of challenging or trying to challenge for the ball. It didn't look like a deliberate trip.

The word genuine is not in the law.

 

[RustyRef]

Aside from the fact it shouldn't have been a penalty, yellow is fine as had the defender clipped him it would have been entirely accidental.

 

[Big Cat]

When a player cuts across the back of another player with no separation, I can live with a 'careless' description of a foul. In such circumstances there's no challenge (unless running is a challenge - is it???) for the ball and therefore DOGSO naturally follows
I struggle to see how running in the general vicinity of an opponent (with clear separation) can be classed as a foul. In which case, the whistle is digging a hole with unavoidable DOGSO at the bottom
I'm not giving a foul for this a) because the contact is slight and very difficult to detect and b) In parks football, this would be the expected decision

 

[alexgr]

Aside from the fact it shouldn't have been a penalty, yellow is fine as had the defender clipped him it would have been entirely accidental.

So would therefore have been a foul where the defender has not made a genuine attempt for the ball, therefore DOGSO no?

 

[one]

So would therefore have been a foul where the defender has not made a genuine attempt for the ball, therefore DOGSO no?

Why do you insist on using the word "genuine"? It puts too much emphisis on the the intent of player. More than what the law required you to consider.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I worked in Amiens many years ago in a Citroen garage. A french old guy was chuntering very fast French near me, he wasn’t happy with our presence. I asked out host to fully translate as I can do basic but this was too quick to understand. He said that the guy couldn’t believe that English guys were over here fitting ductwork in France.... I told him to be very grateful he wasn’t speaking German and his grandad was pleased to see us in 1942.....

 

[alexgr]

Why do you insist on using the word "genuine"? It puts too much emphisis on the the intent of player. More than what the law required you to consider.

Sorry, I meant an attempt to play the ball!

 

[JH]

Aside from the fact it shouldn't have been a penalty, yellow is fine as had the defender clipped him it would have been entirely accidental.

Rusty, where in law does it say accidental DOGSO is just a yellow?

 

[one]

Rusty, where in law does it say accidental DOGSO is just a yellow?

It doesn't but it is implied. For me, it's part of what the law intends here.

I'd say it is still a foul though, a careless (but accidental) one. Once the opponent has the ball and takes front position the onus is on the defender to take care not to make contact causing a trip.

 

[JH]

It doesn't but it is implied. For me, it's part of what the law intends here.

I'd say it is still a foul though, a careless (but accidental) one. Once the opponent has the ball and takes front position the onus is on the defender to take care not to make contact causing a trip.

An accidental trip is not an attempt to play the ball and nowhere does it say that accidental fouls carry a reduced sanction.
Careless yes, but DOGSO is situational, it can be careless and DOGSO red.

 

[one]

An accidental trip is not an attempt to play the ball

Where in law does it say this?

I can categorically dispute that from experience. Most trips (in or out of the area) that I give a free kick for are accidental while challeging (or attempting to) for the ball.
Careless and accidental are not mutually exclusive. A foul while attempting to play the ball could be accidental and careless at the same time.

I do get your point of not using 'accidental foul' as a direct reason to reduce sanction. That not how the law is written.

 

[JH]

Where in law does it say this?

I can categorically dispute that from experience. Most trips (in or out of the area) that I give a free kick for are accidental while challeging (or attempting to) for the ball.
Careless and accidental are not mutually exclusive. A foul while attempting to play the ball could be accidental and careless at the same time.

I do get your point of not using 'accidental foul' as a direct reason to reduce sanction. That not how the law is written.

I don't care if a foul is accidental or not, for DOGSO sanction I only need to consider whether it is an attempt for the ball or not in the PA. If a player runs behind a player and accidentally trips them (as in the OP), this is in no way an attempt for the ball, therefore he should have been dismissed from the field of play in my opinion.

Not sure why accidental is being discussed at all when the law makes no provisions for it with regards to fouls or DOGSO?

 

[one]

I don't care if a foul is accidental or not, for DOGSO sanction I only need to consider whether it is an attempt for the ball or not in the PA. If a player runs behind a player and accidentally trips them (as in the OP), this is in no way an attempt for the ball, therefore he should have been dismissed from the field of play in my opinion.

Not sure why accidental is being discussed at all when the law makes no provisions for it with regards to fouls or DOGSO?

I have a feeling you won't agree with me here but I will give it a try.

I think you agree it was accidental but you say it's not relevant (but I say it is).

If a player is running twards ball, behind an opponent who has the ball (in OP opponent cut accross) and accidentally trips him, why do you think he was running there?

It's not to trip opponent because we agree it was accidental. You can't say I don't know because the law requires you to figure out his intent to know what he was attempting.

For me if it doesn't look like he is attempting to play the ball but I know playing the ball is his intent, i'd go with yellow. Conversely if it looks like he is attempting to play the ball but I know that his only intent is to trip the opponent, I'd go with red. I believe this is the only way this law can be applied fairly.

 

[RustyRef]

A player running directly behind an attacker is doing so for one reason, to try and get the ball. If they accidentally tangle legs it is careless by the defender, but can easily be classed as an attempt to play the ball as that is what he is trying to do.

You have to look at the intention of the new DOGSO law, players are now only sent off if they cynically prevent an OGSO, e.g. by holding, pulling, taking player out when ball isn't playing, handling, etc. Sending off a player who has completely accidentally tripped an opponent would be totally against the spirit of that law.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If you are giving the pk then am going red
Tripping is not for me an attempt to win the ball, an attempt to win the ball is a mistimed tackle, or where the strikers been too skillful and the defender haa been caught out.
There contary to the above post, is no allowance for cynically. I would even reference the above post as justification for the red, taking player out when ball is not playing, as thats exactly what I see in the clip (if we are saying its a pk)
The defender is not close enough to the ball to be able to make a play for it.
To quote, where there is no possibilty of playing the ball. Is a red

 

[alexgr]

A player running directly behind an attacker is doing so for one reason, to try and get the ball. If they accidentally tangle legs it is careless by the defender, but can easily be classed as an attempt to play the ball as that is what he is trying to do.

No, I disagree. He's trying to get in a better position to then play the ball. The fact of the matter is, however, that in the instance where he trips the opponent (even accidentally), he is not making an attempt for the ball. That would come later on.

 

[Peter Grove]

I think people are also overlooking the fact that it is the easiest thing in the world for a defender to cross over behind an attacker in a way that uses only a totally natural running motion but ensures that there is precisely the slight contact that is enough to trip the opponent. Especially at the professional level we're talking about here, I would almost never give the benefit of the doubt to the defender - in my estimation they usually know exactly what they're doing - and how to make it look as innocuous as possible, in hopes of getting away with it.

 

[Forlan]

I think people are also overlooking the fact that it is the easiest thing in the world for a defender to cross over behind an attacker in a way that uses only a totally natural running motion but ensures that there is precisely the slight contact that is enough to trip the opponent. Especially at the professional level we're talking about here, I would almost never give the benefit of the doubt to the defender - in my estimation they usually know exactly what they're doing - and how to make it look as innocuous as possible, in hopes of getting away with it.

The dark arts....

 

[one]

I think people are also overlooking the fact that it is the easiest thing in the world for a defender to cross over behind an attacker in a way that uses only a totally natural running motion but ensures that there is precisely the slight contact that is enough to trip the opponent. Especially at the professional level we're talking about here, I would almost never give the benefit of the doubt to the defender - in my estimation they usually know exactly what they're doing - and how to make it look as innocuous as possible, in hopes of getting away with it.

Agree with this but as crafty as some players can get , referees can (you would hope) read into the dark art, to quote Forlan.

The OP for me is clear, the defender runs straight at the ball when it is put through, then he sees the attacker cutting across in front of him. In order not to run into the attacker he has no other option but to cut across the other way and that's what he does, getting the slightest touches on the attacker's lifting back foot. Let's say this is one of the very few occasions with no dark art. The most I can give here is a careless foul for (unintentional) tripping while attempting to play the ball, hence a yellow card.
This may not be the exact match for the DOGSG wording but for me it is most definitely in line with it's intent.