A&H

Open Age Really Unsure What To Do ....

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
So, incident in a Sunday County Cup game. Long ball played over the top of a defence holding a high line. Keeper comes out (obviously been watching the sweeper keepers in the Prem :hmmm:) and commits a careless, unintentional foul on the lone attacker who has controlled the ball. Foul is 30 yards from goal and attacker is heading towards corner flag. By the time the foul is comitted there are two other defenders closer to goal and in the near vicinity.

One of those situations where it felt borderline RC (DOGSO) / YC (breaking up a promising attack) / simple FK. (careless foul) Judging from the standard of play I'd seen thus far, I'd give the attacker a 40% chance of putting the ball on target from that distance and angle if there had been no defenders to intervene ... but in fact there were two.

Not sure there was in fact a 'right' answer. In the end, in keepimg with the overall temperature of the game, I gave a simple FK and there were next to no complaints from the attacking team. But thoughts and advice as to what else should have been going through my mind gratefully received!
 
The Referee Store
@Russell Jones - you have answered the question in the body of your post.
- careless unintential tackle = therefore cannot be done for breaking up a promising attack, as that act is deliberate.
- 40% of scoring = therefore no Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

So simple free-kick :)
 
"Careless, unintentional foul..."

How do you what his intent was?

Are we really considering the absurd notion that a promising attack can only be broken up on purpose and not by accident? "Terribly sorry i just stopped that pacy winger sprinting down the pitch but i accidently fouled him......".

If it was a promising attack, and it is stopped by a foul challenge, whether careless or not, then its a caution. Remember the definition of "Careless"....."lack of attention or consideration...."
 
@Padfoot , we are asked to assess players' motivations for their actions in a number of situations (handball, 'back pass', simulation etc) so in no way unreasonable to have a (strongly held) opinion in a situation like this.

That said, I have to say I'm leaning towards your interpretation in this instance. Definitely broke up a romoising attack, whether intentionally or not - so my hindsight is saying YC. And glad that no one (thus far) is seeing this as DOGSO :)
 
@Padfoot , we are asked to assess players' motivations for their actions in a number of situations (handball, 'back pass', simulation etc) so in no way unreasonable to have a (strongly held) opinion in a situation like this.

That said, I have to say I'm leaning towards your interpretation in this instance. Definitely broke up a romoising attack, whether intentionally or not - so my hindsight is saying YC. And glad that no one (thus far) is seeing this as DOGSO :)

Those offences are quite specific in tasking the referee to make a decision based on the effect the players actions was seeking to achieve......stopping a promising attack does not place such an onerous task on the referee....it says "commits a foul....to stop a promising attack..."

Therefore, committing a foul which stops a promising attack is enough for the offence to be complete, whether that foul is careless or otherwise, it's still a foul and it's still stopped a promising attack......

How many times have you heard players protesting their innocence by saying that they didn't mean to do it?
 
Those offences are quite specific in tasking the referee to make a decision based on the effect the players actions was seeking to achieve......stopping a promising attack does not place such an onerous task on the referee....it says "commits a foul....to stop a promising attack..."

Therefore, committing a foul which stops a promising attack is enough for the offence to be complete, whether that foul is careless or otherwise, it's still a foul and it's still stopped a promising attack......

How many times have you heard players protesting their innocence by saying that they didn't mean to do it?
Blimey @Padfoot , even when I agree with you you still want to argue with me .. ;):wow:.

You can rest assured, I pay no heed to players protesting their innocence .. happy to make up my own mind based on the evidence in front of me
 
As you said there were another 2 defenders in a position to intercept, that alone will be enough to take DOGSO out of the equation. Angling away from goal.....doesn't necessarily mean no DOGSO (he doesn't have to head directly towards goal), but it sounds like it's severe enough to no longer be considered heading towards goal.
@Russell Jones - you have answered the question in the body of your post.
- careless unintential tackle = therefore cannot be done for breaking up a promising attack, as that act is deliberate.
Don't agree with that. Careless tackle can still be a caution for breaking up an attack.
So definitely no red card here. YC sounds correct though.
 
Those offences are quite specific in tasking the referee to make a decision based on the effect the players actions was seeking to achieve......stopping a promising attack does not place such an onerous task on the referee....it says "commits a foul....to stop a promising attack..."

Therefore, committing a foul which stops a promising attack is enough for the offence to be complete, whether that foul is careless or otherwise, it's still a foul and it's still stopped a promising attack......

How many times have you heard players protesting their innocence by saying that they didn't mean to do it?
Interestingly (to me anyway) this is one of the laws that has been re-written with little comment.

Previously the law was:
commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack.
I would argue that "for the tactical purpose" meant that the foul had to be committed with the intention of breaking up the attack and that this was therefore one of the areas that the player's intent needed to be considered.

The law now reads:
commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack.
I believe that whilst the new wording reduces the need to consider intent it doesn't completely remove it. If you do a to achieve b, that is very different from doing a and achieving b. If I dress in black to blend in with a group of referees then my intent was to disguise myself as a referee, if I dress in black and blend in with a group of referees then I may or may not have intended to do so...

Nonetheless, I think that the changing of the wording means that anything apart from the most obvious accidents should be a yellow.
 
You're right. Stop being so insensitive folks, it's 2016 after all.
"last gender non-denominational sovereign individual"

:D
I think he was referring to the contribution the statement makes on players appealing "last man ref". If we tell players last man is a red card, all we can expect is for them to appeal for a red card when a 'last man' commits a foul.

The other dislike of mine is when referee justify not giving a free kick by saying "he got the ball". That simply promotes the argument "I got the ball ref" when we do give a free kick.

Most myths of the laws are created and kept alive by referees.
 
Aaaaaaaagh. Did I see the words "last man" above?
Noooooooo!
Yes you did. If you read the post in context you will see it was in reference to pretending to a captain that a player was lucky to escape with a caution.

Speaking to players in their own language can help your refereeing.
 
I think he was referring to the contribution the statement makes on players appealing "last man ref". If we tell players last man is a red card, all we can expect is for them to appeal for a red card when a 'last man' commits a foul.

The other dislike of mine is when referee justify not giving a free kick by saying "he got the ball". That simply promotes the argument "I got the ball ref" when we do give a free kick.

Most myths of the laws are created and kept alive by referees.
Wrong, see above. It was a lesson in kidology
 
Back
Top