A&H

Collina: tackler going off with injured player & YC + pen for DOGSO

R

rainertheref

Member
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/10046697/Referee-bid-to-punish-bad-tackles-harsher

What are your thoughts on these two issues?

1. I tend to agree that if a player receives a caution for a tackle, he should stay off until the injured player or a substitute re-enters. There might be some issues around creating an incentive for the tackled player to go off when they don't really need to, and when the tackled team has no subs left, removing the difference between a yellow and red card (disregarding suspensions).

2. I can see the point here - if my bad tackle stops an opponent taking a one-on-one shot from about 12 yards out, not only do I get sent off, he still gets to take a one-on-one shot from 12 yards out. But in my opinion, whichever way this was introduced would lead to problems.

If the law was changed so DOGSO was either RC + DFK, RC + IDFK or YC + PEN, you do get the issue mentioned in the article, where the team whose shot is stopped by a hand on the line might be left with nothing - no 1-man advantage, and no goal if the penalty is missed.

On the other hand, having a different rule for DOGSO and DOG (denying an obvious goal) might leave too much of a grey area between opportunities and certain goals.
 
The Referee Store
What if the player who was injured gets substituted before he returns to the pitch? What if he cannot return to the pitch because of the injury and the team have no substitutes left? If the player isn't guilty of a sending off offense, he should not be forced to leave the FOP for any reason unless he required medical attention as well. That would be unfair.
 
Fairly obvious the tackler would come on with the substitute. Less clear what would happen if subs are all used (but why should the injured player's team have 10 for the rest of the game, while the bad tackler's have 11).

The point of this change would be to address the fundamental unfairness of teams gaining a numerical advantage by injuring an opponent. Why do you think forcing the tackler to leave the field would be more unfair?
 
Because we always say that we punish the crime, not the result. Forcing him to leave because his reckless challenge happened to hurt someone would be punishing the result, not the crime.
 
You might have a cliche you always use, but it's not part of the LOTG, and I'd rather debate potential law changes on fairness, safety and their effect on the game.
 
What about instances where a fair tackle occurs with no foul given and an injury is simply an accident?

Also, this is not relevant, but the title of that news story is a grammatical abomination. Clearly the author has gotten his/her adjectives confused with adverbs - "punish bad tackles harsher" - :confused:
 
Well the standard of grammar in the world's media is plummeting quickly and in this, like so many other things, New Zealand is a world leader.

Collina's suggestion only applies to reckless tackles - even a careless tackle which inadvertently injures the opponent will see the tackler stay on the field.
 
Your star player commits a reckless tackle on an opponent. The opponent goes off injured (he isn't really) and keeps the star player from going back on as long as possible?
 
Why should the logic only apply to reckless challenges and not to careless challenges as well?
 
Am I the only one who is happy with the DOGSO laws as they currently are?

Any changes to them are being motivated by the big powerful clubs/leagues who don't want their highly paid prima donnas sat around not playing.....and not out of any desire to improve the game.

Leave it alone and teach your players to play fairly.
 
I do like the DOGSO law. The only change I would make is no ban following the game.
 
rainertheref said:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/10046697/Referee-bid-to-punish-bad-tackles-harsher

What are your thoughts on these two issues?

1. I tend to agree that if a player receives a caution for a tackle, he should stay off until the injured player or a substitute re-enters. There might be some issues around creating an incentive for the tackled player to go off when they don't really need to, and when the tackled team has no subs left, removing the difference between a yellow and red card (disregarding suspensions).

2. I can see the point here - if my bad tackle stops an opponent taking a one-on-one shot from about 12 yards out, not only do I get sent off, he still gets to take a one-on-one shot from 12 yards out. But in my opinion, whichever way this was introduced would lead to problems.

If the law was changed so DOGSO was either RC + DFK, RC + IDFK or YC + PEN, you do get the issue mentioned in the article, where the team whose shot is stopped by a hand on the line might be left with nothing - no 1-man advantage, and no goal if the penalty is missed.

On the other hand, having a different rule for DOGSO and DOG (denying an obvious goal) might leave too much of a grey area between opportunities and certain goals.
Click to expand...
It may be unfair but players know what happens when you do such a tackle and they have to face the consequences. Its harsh, yes, but it applies to everyone. I've seen an U7 get RCed for DOGSO by handball, and they have to deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top