|
Semprini posted:They did it as a one-off with an SPL match a few years ago for a documentary. Sadly, they used Ian Brines, so we learned nothing. It was also done in the EPL. Can't remember who the ref was exactly, but it was an Arsenal game. There was so much swearing they haven't tried it since, which is a shame.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
EvilHawk posted:It was also done in the EPL. Can't remember who the ref was exactly, but it was an Arsenal game. There was so much swearing they haven't tried it since, which is a shame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ruNosLNOE
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
 1. New passage of play, that's a goal. 2. No advantage, play on. 3. Indirect free kick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
1. That's a goal. 2. Some discretion required, if the shot was obviously hindered then you can pull it back for the foul as no advantage was gained. 3. Indirect free kick from then edge of the goal area (6-yard box). And I think the defender also gets a red card for DoGSO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
1) Give that man a goal, allow manager to punch his keeper in the face. 2) Based on how it's worded I would pull play back, give a penalty and book/send off the defender depending on the position of the other defenders. 3) Indirect free kick for the attacking team, to be taken from the edge of the 6 yard box. Book the defender for unsportsmanlike behaviour... sure why not? Note it in the match report so other people can laugh at it too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
1.) Goal, punch goalie in face, drink tears. Offside applies only when a keeper parries or blocks a shot, not when he has possession. 2.) Keith says "tries to trip", which is a foul and a penalty. I wouldn't call it back unless it's dangerous or reckless, and then I'd book the defender and give the penalty. However, If it's just a bit of contact, you applied advantage and he missed the shot, then no penalty. 3.) Yellow for unsporting behavior for unfairly gaining an advantage, like climbing up the referee a couple weeks back. IDFK from outside the goal box. Bio-Hazard fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Tunga posted:1. That's a goal. This is pretty much what I would say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
1. Goal 2. Assuming the defender tried to trip but failed, and the attacker stumbled on his own, it's not a penalty. Numerous reasons you could yellow card the defender, but no foul was committed. If there was any contact, it's up to you. 3. IFK Pretty straight forward this week actually, which means we'll all be wrong.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
1. Goal. It wasn't a free kick or anything like that, and the keeper placed the ball on the ground himself. 2. Sorry, I guess I played advantage. 3. Stop play, red for DOGSO, penalty. Seems too easy, must be missing something. e: OK, I really need to learn when it's a penalty and when it's an IDFK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Take it away, Hackett:quote:1) A terrific question. As always, think clearly, step by step. The striker was in an offside position when the shot was struck – but once the keeper gathers the ball, however quickly he then rolls it forwards, the initial phase for penalising the offside position ends. This is the keeper's error – he has effectively passed the ball to an opponent in open play. So allow the goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Interesting that the defender in 3 only gets a yellow though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
pik_d posted:Interesting that the defender in 3 only gets a yellow though. quote:A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the quote:Free kicks are either direct or indirect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 11:08
|
|
|
Tunga posted:I went to see what the laws have to say about this: I think the keys were: 2) the shot and foul are semi simultaneous so you hadn't played advantage. It's inside the 3-5 second rule. 3) there are two dogso rules. One for impeding the ball (part 1, handling it) and one for impeding a player (part 2, a player moving towards your goal). Neither is satisfied here. Interestingly though if there's an open goal scenario and a loose ball, but the striker is running a couple of steps BACKWARD to gain the ball (say a breakaway where the keeper saves and parries weakly but is left stranded) then pulling him down as he reaches it isn't a red as he wasn't moving towards your goal. Even if the second he touched it he would have had an open net to pass it into. That'd make a good question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
That was in relation to 3 (defender hanging off the net) not 2 (defender's foul causes a miskick).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
Tunga posted:That was in relation to 3 (defender hanging off the net) not 2 (defender's foul causes a miskick). I started referring just to 3, but added 2 in too because other people were questioning it. But yeah, basically the player wasn't impeded, and the ball wasn't handled. So it isn't DOGSO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
Masonity posted:But yeah, basically the player wasn't impeded, and the ball wasn't handled. So it isn't DOGSO. quote:denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving I understand exactly what you're saying and why Hackett says that, just seems like the rule is really badly worded. Tunga fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
No... There are two offences. You can foul an individual player, or commit a foul against a team. The foul you commit is against a team, as you didn't interfere with any individual player. 1)denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) 2)denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick Part 1 refers to fouls against a team, such as hand ball, simulation, unsporting conduct, etc. Part 2 refers to fouls against individual players, such as obstructing them or making unlawful physical contact. You can't argue that the defender fouled the attacker. He didn't go anywhere near the attacker. What he did is commit an offence against the opposing side, not the specific player. As such it's only a red if covered by part 1, which only specifies a red for hand ball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
I do get it, though the law could be worded different and it would be clearer. Basically it comes down to the fact that you can't deny a goal to an opponent, only to the opposing team as a whole. An individual opponent can only be denied an oppotunity. Heading it off the line isn't denying an opportunity, it's denying a goal. I could certainly fabricate a situation whereby instead of clearing the header off the line, I swing on the crossbar and clear a ball with my feet when a player is just about to score. That is straight up "denying an opportunity to an opponent" in the literal English sense of those words. That's why this rule isn't as clear as it could be. And yes, I still understand what it "refers" to and what it "really means", but laws should be written clearly without having to understand some specific interpretation of "opponent" vs. "opposing team" which isn't stated anywhere. Look at it this way, is there any good reason for the second case not to say "direct free kick"? Compromise: You're right, but I'm still going to show FIFA a yellow card and punch Keith Hackett in the face just because. Tunga fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
Tunga posted:I do get it, though the law could be worded different and it would be clearer. Basically it comes down to the fact that you can't deny a goal to an opponent, only to the opposing team as a whole. An individual opponent can only be denied an oppotunity. Heading it off the line isn't denying an opportunity, it's denying a goal. The problem with directly stating a direct free kick = dogso is that there are fouls against a player (obstruction, short pulling maybe? Climbing on then for a header?) that should result in an ifk but would be a red in the case of dogso.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
Masonity posted:The problem with directly stating a direct free kick = dogso is that there are fouls against a player (obstruction, short pulling maybe? Climbing on then for a header?) that should result in an ifk but would be a red in the case of dogso. I also a found reference to "playing dangerously" (the thing that people refer to as the "high foot" rule) which specifically mentions that DOGSO is applicable to it. So in my example you would get a red card if someone is about to head it into the goal when you swing on the crossbar to kick it away. So there we go. I guess we can say that I just wouldn't Hackett as a referee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
I'm still not sure what issue there is with what Hackett's said. Denying a goal scoring opportunity means not allowing the player to get his shot off properly (denying him the opportunity). Denying a goal means blocking the goal-bound ball after it has been shot. In #3 the striker has his opportunity without incident, it was only the goal which was denied, and that is not a sending-off offense unless it was handled. It's pretty straightforward, if a little unintuitive if you're used to thinking only in terms of DOGSO. We often lump denying goalscoring opportunities and denying by handling into one big category of DOGSO, but it's worth remembering that they're two similar but distinct offenses. And as a side note, the USSF position paper on DOGSO contains a reminder that it need not be a direct free kick offense to warrant a sending-off; technical or other IDFK offenses which deny obvious goalscoring opportunities are punished the exact same way. (Of course, rereading it, the very first sentence is incorrect when it says 'denying a goal', but what can you do)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Tunga posted:I also a found reference to "playing dangerously" (the thing that people refer to as the "high foot" rule) which specifically mentions that DOGSO is applicable to it. So in my example you would get a red card if someone is about to head it into the goal when you swing on the crossbar to kick it away. So there we go. Except that the example is the defender headed it not kicked it. So there was nothing inherently dangerous with his play, only that he used the netting of the goal to gain an unfair/unsporting advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
1)Goal, punch the keeper for not paying attention 2)No penalty and play on 3)IFK
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
I think that you penalize the first foul, where he is climbing the netting, before penalizing the DOGSO. I like his response about advantage; the attacker has to come out with an ADVANTAGE, rather than just escaping unharmed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Bio-Hazard posted:I think that you penalize the first foul, where he is climbing the netting, before penalizing the DOGSO. The defender has not denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity; he has denied a goal. The latter is only a sending-off if he does it with his hand. He has not committed either of the DOGSO offenses in this instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Lladre posted:Except that the example is the defender headed it not kicked it. So there was nothing inherently dangerous with his play, only that he used the netting of the goal to gain an unfair/unsporting advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Lamont Cranston posted:The defender has not denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity; he has denied a goal. The latter is only a sending-off if he does it with his hand. He has not committed either of the DOGSO offenses in this instance. It's just weird how disadvantaging the other team more is worthy of a lesser punishment. Unfairly denying a clear goal feels like it should be punished equally or more than denying an opportunity which may or may not result in a goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
pik_d posted:It's just weird how disadvantaging the other team more is worthy of a lesser punishment. Unfairly denying a clear goal feels like it should be punished equally or more than denying an opportunity which may or may not result in a goal. And annoyingly enough, the Advice to Refs from the USSF contains the following: quote:Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body. but that is bullshit imo and not supported by the wording in the laws. In any case it's an interpretation which would only be binding in the US. Aaaaaaanyway, don't be distracted too much by Michael Laudrup as you ponder the following: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
1. Yellows for both for being shits. 2. Play on. Like watching the player's eyes ever helped. Laugh if the player falls over because he put in opaque contacts and is now blind. 3. Fifteen-yard penalty on the defense for "disconcerting signals." Oh wait. Do nothing to bail out the defender for being stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
1. Yellow card the defender if the foul was deserving of it, then yellow card both for their carry-on bullshit and punch both players in the face. 2. Order the player to leave the field and remove them (blinding himself makes himself a danger to the other players). Since the player is now blind, it's a perfect opportunity to punch him in the face. 3. Goal. Punch the defender in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Popehoist posted:1. Yellow card the defender if the foul was deserving of it, then yellow card both for their carry-on bullshit and punch both players in the face. Opaque contacts don't blind the wearer..
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
1) Yellow for the defender, and red for the snowball-thrower for violent conduct. 2) If you're satisfied there's no safety implications, play on. 3) That's a goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
"Nudging" somebody with your foot is pretty much kicking them, isn't it? If you're going to card the player at all I don't know what offence you're going to cite. "Violent conduct" warrants a sending off but to apply it to a nudge seems farcical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
1. According to how it's written there, the winger gets a yellow card for trying to get the other guy booked, the defender gets a yellow card for poking him, and then the winger gets another yellow for throwing the snowball. In reality, they'd most likely both just get booked, or the snowball could be counted as excessive force or whatever and be a straight red. Nobody really gets booked for rolling around on the floor. The foot nudge thing is also kind of difficult to judge. To physically roll someone over with your foot takes a fair amount of effort, but it's not really a red card, it's not violent. 2. It just comes down to whether they are safe for the player to be wearing. There shouldn't be a visibility issue but is there a safety issue with wearing contacts in general. I actually have no idea. Do professional some footballers wear contact lenses (for sight reasons)? If they do then I guess this is fine. 3. Punch the defender in the face, allow the goal, and run off into the sunset with dreamy Michael Laudrup  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
1.) Yellows for all, I think this is a question about INTENT. If their intention was malice, then you could show anything up to red for violent conduct for the snowball. However, if they're just playing around, and they accidentally caught me with a snowball, I'd dole out yellows and call the initial foul. 2.) I'd treat them like any other contacts, but maybe make a note to the FA in the report so they can give advice to other referees who will encounter this tactic. 3.) I have a hard time calling a foul for anything said verbally, except for foul and abusive language or an attempt to scare a player off the ball. The striker isn't intentionally deceiving the defender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 10:53
|
|
|
1. Yellow the defender, because he must've nudged the attacker pretty hard to make him roll in the snow, yellow card to the defender for simulation and another yellow for throwing a snowball at the defender, then throw a snowball at the attacking player's face. 2. Let him play on and laugh at him when he misses. 3. Goal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
1) Yellow for the defender. Yellow for the winger for diving, another for unsportsmanlike conduct. Plus a kick in the balls. 2) How in the gently caress did they get contact lenses? Were they carrying them? Were they handed over from the sideline? Do they want to insert them with dirty hands? Ew. Tell them to ditch the unapproved equipment and call him a tosser. 3) That may be one of the dumbest questions I've seen in this series. It's a goal. Call the defending team's captain over to tell him what a loving moron his player is for falling for something that retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
1. Book the defender for unsporting conduct (rolling the winger into the snow after play stopped) and send off the winger for violent conduct. Throwing anything with the intent of hitting someone else, whether you connect or not, is violent conduct. 2. Tell the player to get rid of them and book him for unsporting conduct. This is trying to gain an advantage through less than honest equipment. 3. Goal. Punch the manager of the defending team in the face for putting such a dumbass on the pitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
I really don't get the third one at all. I know it's "unsporting" or whatever for a striker to call "mine" to trick defenders into thinking it was the keeper shouting, but I don't see the issue at all with that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:I really don't get the third one at all. I know it's "unsporting" or whatever for a striker to call "mine" to trick defenders into thinking it was the keeper shouting, but I don't see the issue at all with that one. There isn't a problem with it, but I can't wait to be Hacketted™ on Monday to see how we're all wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 15:34
|
|