A&H

Amiens v Lyon

one said:
This may not be the exact match for the DOGSG wording but for me it is most definitely in line with it's intent.
Click to expand...

And this is, perhaps, the crux of the matter - it would seem 'fair' to most of us to punish this with a yellow card, yet that's not what the wording says. Just another instance of the wording of the LOTG being absolutely terrible
 
The Referee Store
alexgr said:
And this is, perhaps, the crux of the matter - it would seem 'fair' to most of us to punish this with a yellow card, yet that's not what the wording says. Just another instance of the wording of the LOTG being absolutely terrible
Click to expand...


Thats a good summary, I would like to give yellow but would feel obliged to give red, as there is no possibility of the defender getting near the ball
 
With respect to DOGSO inside the PA, 'the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball, in ALL other circumstance (e.g. blah blah) the offending player must be sent off'
If you're giving a PK (and I'm not), you've dug a DOGSO hole imo
Not keen on talk of inference, unless of course this L7 missed a Church of Scientology meeting in which senior members share mysterious secrets
 
one said:
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?
Click to expand...
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
Running in itself is not an attempt to play the ball, you can't just say 'well they were going to attempt for the ball eventually'.

"in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."

There is no possibility to play the ball from that position and so the offending player should be sent off.
 
JH said:
Running in itself is not an attempt to play the ball, you can't just say 'well they were going to attempt for the ball eventually'.

"in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off."

There is no possibility to play the ball from that position and so the offending player should be sent off.
Click to expand...
Also, just reversing things, what if the defender fell to ground as a result of the contact and the attacker kept his feet. Would we consider the defender to have been tripped because the attacker crossed the defender's path?
It's not particularly fair that the attacker was denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity in the Amiens game. Equally, it's not particularly fair that the defender was cautioned (and penalty conceded) for 'running on the FOP'. The coaching of the LOTG trends towards finding in favor of the attacker; we only have to look at the ridiculous handball decisions since (and including) the World Cup
Not all contact is a foul, but (agreeing with @JH ), if your coaching deems this a foul, the wording of the DOGSO Law surely mandates a dismissal
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Clipping somebody from behind is not an attempt on the ball. Thus, it should have been a red. The minor nature of the foul just isn't relevant.
Click to expand...


I think the yc issuers amongst us are taking pity on the defender, as its a soft pen...
wrongly, there is no attempt to play the ball, needs to go. Its impossible for him to get that ball even if he tried harder
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Clipping somebody from behind is not an attempt on the ball. Thus, it should have been a red. The minor nature of the foul just isn't relevant.
Click to expand...
The trip has to be careless for it to be a foul, otherwise it's just contact. So the minor nature of it is relevant in my view
 
Ciley Myrus said:
I think the yc issuers amongst us are taking pity on the defender, as its a soft pen...
wrongly, there is no attempt to play the ball, needs to go. Its impossible for him to get that ball even if he tried harder
Click to expand...


Does that matter though, the law says if it was an attempt to play the ball, dont think (might be wrong) it says someone has to have a chance of playing the ball.
 
spuddy1878 said:
Does that matter though, the law says if it was an attempt to play the ball, dont think (might be wrong) it says someone has to have a chance of playing the ball.
Click to expand...

By that reasoning we can forgive the guilty ones centre forward too, as he neither can get that ball but if he sticks out a leg from 30 yards away I suppose we can argue that's an attempt. The defender in this clip cant make an attempt, the ball is too far away. Agree 100% nowhere does it say chance of playing the ball but gotta be realistic, this guy cannot get the ball so hiding being the guise of making an attempt is glossing over his offence (if we are giving the pk of course)
 
Big Cat said:
The trip has to be careless for it to be a foul, otherwise it's just contact. So the minor nature of it is relevant in my view
Click to expand...
I said minor nature of the FOUL. as in, once you've established it is a foul the severity is irrelevant fur DOGSO (except those borderline cases where you're looking for an excuse to go one way or the other....)
 
spuddy1878 said:


Does that matter though, the law says if it was an attempt to play the ball, dont think (might be wrong) it says someone has to have a chance of playing the ball.
Click to expand...
Genuine attempt on the ball.. So yes, there has to be a chance.
But there was no attempt on the ball whatsoever here. Chasing a player is not an attempt on the ball
 
My view has nothing to do with if the foul is minor or petty. It has very much to do with what the law intended us to do here.

When the triple punishment was removed they didn't want anyone to wrongly take advantage of it by deliberately fouling, take a yellow and take a chance that pen is not scored. So they left the red card for those type of offences so the law is not misused

Why they chose the wording that is there now, God knows. It is not showing that exact intent and this case exposes that flaw. I suspect they didn't want to use the words "deliberate foul" because that would have opened a much bigger can of worms.

I think @alexgr hit the nail on the head pointing out the poor wording. Let's not get bugged down to the exact letter of the law here and look deeper into why the law was changed to downgrade a red.
 
one said:
My view has nothing to do with if the foul is minor or petty. It has very much to do with what the law intended us to do here.

When the triple punishment was removed they didn't want anyone to wrongly take advantage of it by deliberately fouling, take a yellow and take a chance that pen is not scored. So they left the red card for those type of offences so the law is not misused

Why they chose the wording that is there now, God knows. It is not showing that exact intent and this case exposes that flaw. I suspect they didn't want to use the words "deliberate foul" because that would have opened a much bigger can of worms.

I think @alexgr hit the nail on the head pointing out the poor wording. Let's not get bugged down to the exact letter of the law here and look deeper into why the law was changed to downgrade a red.
Click to expand...
I could 'look deeper' into every law and make an argument to suit a decision. You are making inferences that are not in the book. The law supports a red card in this scenario, harsh or not.
 
one said:
My view has nothing to do with if the foul is minor or petty. It has very much to do with what the law intended us to do here.

When the triple punishment was removed they didn't want anyone to wrongly take advantage of it by deliberately fouling, take a yellow and take a chance that pen is not scored. So they left the red card for those type of offences so the law is not misused

Why they chose the wording that is there now, God knows. It is not showing that exact intent and this case exposes that flaw. I suspect they didn't want to use the words "deliberate foul" because that would have opened a much bigger can of worms.

I think @alexgr hit the nail on the head pointing out the poor wording. Let's not get bugged down to the exact letter of the law here and look deeper into why the law was changed to downgrade a red.
Click to expand...
For all I've said on this subject, I can never discount your viewpoint
When i officiated Golf Tournaments, there was still latitude to rule in 'Equity' (fairness to all), if something happened which hadn't been clarified in the 1000+ page 'Decisions Book'
IFAB clearly want to keep the Laws as concise as possible. Therefore, it's not uncommon for exact scenarios to fall through the gaps. I think you're right about the philosophy of the DOGSO rule and the triple jeopardy. With regards to the OP, the absence of a foul is unfair on the attacker, a foul is unfair on the defender, but the MOST unfair outcome is triple jeopardy. Therefore, the referee applied the Law in the Spirit of the Game
Trouble is, if I this happened in an observed game of mine, which outcome would i get praised or slaughtered for? Who can say?
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Big Cat said:
For all I've said on this subject, I can never discount your viewpoint
When i officiated Golf Tournaments, there was still latitude to rule in 'Equity' (fairness to all), if something happened which hadn't been clarified in the 1000+ page 'Decisions Book'
IFAB clearly want to keep the Laws as concise as possible. Therefore, it's not uncommon for exact scenarios to fall through the gaps. I think you're right about the philosophy of the DOGSO rule and the triple jeopardy. With regards to the OP, the absence of a foul is unfair on the attacker, a foul is unfair on the defender, but the MOST unfair outcome is triple jeopardy. Therefore, the referee applied the Law in the Spirit of the Game
Trouble is, if I this happened in an observed game of mine, which outcome would i get praised or slaughtered for? Who can say?
Click to expand...



Respectfully, i/we should have no concern for the fairness of lack of, for the defender (if we are deeming he has committed the foul), if we are penalising the foul, then he has to go.
Tripping, which is what this is....is a red card offence when it comes to DOGSO.
If I was observing, I would expect a red card and i would justify my observations as per above. The triple jeopardy principle, I can leave that to the boardroom to discuss. Its not for the referee to determine what the IFAB board might be thinking, only to carry out what they instruct.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Respectfully, i/we should have no concern for the fairness of lack of, for the defender (if we are deeming he has committed the foul), if we are penalising the foul, then he has to go.
Tripping, which is what this is....is a red card offence when it comes to DOGSO.
If I was observing, I would expect a red card and i would justify my observations as per above. The triple jeopardy principle, I can leave that to the boardroom to discuss. Its not for the referee to determine what the IFAB board might be thinking, only to carry out what they instruct.
Click to expand...
I also get what you're saying, as it's what I've also been saying from the outset
However, if it doesn't feel right, it probably isn't right. 'Give the decision the game expects....and all that patter'
That's why the right decision for me, is to conclude 'accidental contact', no foul, play on; with the added caveat that the contact was probably difficult to spot, further justifying the decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top