A&H

Up to date....

The Referee Store
The way the game is refereed, all it will mean is that referees will have even more reason to pretend that DOGSO didn't happen...need to change the culture before you increase the significance of big decisions, given the current culture of 'referees shouldn't make decisions'.
Need to pin the blame onto players for match changing events not referees.
 
We all know that what's going to happen is 'Big Dave' and his 18 stone frame is not going to be able to keep up with 'Johnny the Whippet' so depending on whether he's a psychopath or not he's either going to SFP the poor lad or if he's happy to 'take the booking' he's going to deliberately trip him without going for the ball.

I hate this law change
 
Hi
This in my opinion relates to deliberate handling. Personally I see nothing wrong with the referee having the powers to award a goal when he is 100% certain it was going to be a goal. It is going to be a penalty anyway and over many years I wished that I could have been able to award the goal. Last two seasons in separate games defenders stopped ball on the line with hands and I went with reds and penalties. Both penalties missed.
Reading this it suggests that changes afoot to DHB. I have been suggesting that for a very long time.
 
Darius said:
We all know that what's going to happen is 'Big Dave' and his 18 stone frame is not going to be able to keep up with 'Johnny the Whippet' so depending on whether he's a psychopath or not he's either going to SFP the poor lad or if he's happy to 'take the booking' he's going to deliberately trip him without going for the ball.

I hate this law change
Click to expand...
I thought this thread was about a potential change to the DOGSO-H part of the law but here, it seems you're talking about DOGSO-F instead. Having said that, if what you've described above were done in a DOGSO situation it would be about as clear an example as you could get of a challenge that would still be a red card under the new version of the law.

If it is your judgement as a referee that the player "deliberately trip[ped] him without going for the ball" then that would clearly fall under the category of "The offending player does not attempt to play the ball..."
 
Last edited:
I am on about DOGSO-F yes, but that's the point it's clear to us because we know the law. Players won't. Sunday mornings are going to be an absolute nightmare
 
Darius said:
I am on about DOGSO-F yes, but that's the point it's clear to us because we know the law. Players won't. Sunday mornings are going to be an absolute nightmare
Click to expand...
Nothing new there .. !

Remember, at one time DOGSO didn't even exist. Players seem to have got their head round it since it was introduced (despite lots of unhelpful 'last man' commentary on MOTD!). I agree with Peter, the example described is still a nailed on DOGSO-F.

Obviously the proof will come once the new season starts. However I'm losing no sleep over the change to the DOGSO-F interpretation. As referees, we're already asked to use our judgement in a wide variety of ways in assessing both the outcome of a player's action and (in some cases, like 'back pass' and handling) his intent. The change to DOGSO-F in the box will simply be one more decision to make and IMO is a change more than warranted by the unfair 'triple punishment' currently in force in these situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top