Not the best quality, but incident of video immediately below at 0:32 A few thoughts: 1. I think the foul was outside the area, in which case a red card and DFK would have been the correct decision. But the video probably isn't good enough to confirm that assertion, so... 2. If you say this is a penalty, the default position should be yellow card unless this was SFP/VC (it wasn't), there was a hold or pull (there wasn't) or you determine there was a tackle that either had no attempt to play the ball or no possibility of playing the ball (I disagree, but more on that below). 3. My first instinct was that this was a misapplication of the Laws, because nothing in #2 applies. But then I realized we have a lot of grey area on what constitutes a tackle and an honest attempt at playing the ball--maybe way too much grey area. The defender clips the attacker's heels. Does he do so because of his positioning and the fact that the attacker slows up? Maybe. Was there a deliberate attempt to challenge and bring down the attacker? Doesn't look like it. Was this really more of a careless foul due to proximity rather than a cynical foul to stop a goal? I'd say 'yes.' Then how does Stark end up with a red card? Either he reflexively went by the old Laws and made what is now a serious error (I find that unlikely, but possible) or he (and the DFB? UEFA?) have a very liberal interpretation of what a tackle/challenge in the penalty area is. If it's the latter, I find that surprising, because I've heard that PRO and CONCACAF are already arguing a much more conservative approach to the application of this portion of the Law change. One-off mistake? Or an example of the IFAB/FIFA taking one step forward and two steps back with the ever-constant pursuit of "consistency?"
This is pure speculation but I thought I saw a slight grab of the jersey in the close up. Not saying that was the foul the ref called but maybe...? Either way your points are valid, this definitely falls into the artificial grey area of the new law when you add the playing for the ball concept.
Good point. It's certainly another possibility, as the hand does seem to end up on the chest at one point. Practically, I don't think he could have seen that (and I also don't think that action rises to the level of a foul), but it is another possibility. I would argue, however, that if you call a hold/pull for DOGSO in situations like this, you now need to be very demonstrative visually in explaining so, in order to better justify the red card. I would expect something along those lines from Stark here if that was indeed what he was calling.
After watching this clip, it looks like is a week PK call, actually both PK were questionable. However I see a potential hold by the defender, this would give the referee enough ammo to go with a Red Card.
For my money, this is exactly the type of play that IFAB was trying to turn into a caution. IMHO, the holding/pulling/pushing/no chance was not designed to create an excuse to give reds, but to (inartfully) identify cynical plays that should be punished with a send off even though a PK was awarded. This sure doesn't seem like that to me. (I'd love to know what was being said over the intercom. The AR would presumably have had the best view of whether it was in the PA or not, but unless something was instantly said into the mic, I don't see anything that suggests the R was getting input.) And I fully agree this is a great example of the challenge of the new Law. It would be interesting to know what the instructions are at the highest level. Do they start at red and see if there is an applicable exception, or start at yellow and see if there is an exception. Which way the thought process is taught is going to put some level of bias into the decision making process. (For the level of games I do, I am absolutely in the "start with yellow" camp -- but I'm not sure if that would be the right mindset at the professional level.)
"Enough ammo to go with a red card" is a peculiar phrasing, because it goes against the obvious spirit behind and impetus for the law change. The powers that be want fewer red cards to accompany penalties. They carved out exceptions to this change that equate with either violent/dangerous behavior (VC/SFP) or obvious cynical plays (deliberate holds or tackles with no attempt to play the ball). We shouldn't be looking for ways to justify reds on dubious incidents; if there is doubt, the default position is yellow.
A quibble (with IFAB, I suppose): The VC/SFP language isn't really a carve out to DOGSO -- it's a poorly drafted effort to make clear to dunderheads that the DOGSO carve outs don't apply to VC/SFP but only to DOGSO. (And we know if they didn't make it clear somehow, that there are those would argue for it to apply . . . ) Unfortunately, the poor drafting choice makes the actual carve out to DOGSO more confusing than it should be.
Maybe using the word "ammo" was not the best choice, but I still stand by it. This is speculation at best, but from the referees angle there was a potential grab. This is not playing or attempting to play the ball, this is pure and simple playing the man which as far as I can tell is still a red card DOGSO according to the new law interpretations.
We seem to ultimately disagree on the conclusion, but you're raising an important point. On situations like this, not only do referees have to be certain of a foul (and certain of the location of the foul), they also now have to be certain of the type of foul. We're still in speculation mode, admittedly, but what happens when you know a foul occurred but you only think there was a grab or hold? That was never a problem for us in the past. It is now.
I agree with the initial assessment. Outside the area most likely so red card would be appropriate, but if it's a penalty I don't think you can justify the decision under the new Laws. Sent from my 2PS64 using Tapatalk
There is an apparently hold... if that's what the referee is calling... he must have felt that it continued into the PA, thus... red. I can't tell if it ended before the PA line or not. But if it did, it's either FK/Red outside the area or PK/Yellow (for heel clip) if the foul called was inside.
Example #1,468 why I feel like this change is just a disaster. In the spirit and context of the new Law, I don't think it is a red card and should be a yellow, but this is also one where you can legitimately justify a red under the Laws. You "can" make the case he wasn't trying to play the ball. He made no motion to actually go for the ball. What do you with the play above if it is in the penalty area? Mascherano, puts his hands up saying he is trying to avoid contact, but we all know he is cutting across him for a reason. It's not a push or a pull, and it's not a "cynical" piece of defending at obvious glance, but we all know exactly what Maschearno is doing here. Same thing with the play at the 2:10 minute mark. Do you classify it as a push here? Also, the clip below here. Let's just say that there was more of a direction towards goal this has to be a red card under the new Laws. It's a pull right?
Agreed on all of this. You can make the case, but I don't think the powers that be want us to and I also don't know how strong of a case it is. The issue is that on this challenge, and the first two you lay out in video, there is no attempt to play the ball but you can also argue that it's a careless foul due to proximity, rather than a cynical foul. The idea was to remove the DOGSO red for everything but the most cynical fouls in the penalty area, since the OGSO was restored by the PK. But the text of the Law leaves a lot to be desired, as this incident shows. Leaving aside the "we all know" part for a second, this is an excellent example. Whether Mascherano meant to do it or not, he had no opportunity to legally play the ball. By the strict text of the Laws ("does not attempt to play the ball") then it would be a red card in the penalty area, right? But let's pretend for a moment that this is a lower skilled-match or we didn't "all know" what Mascherano was doing... this sort of foul could be a completely careless action, where the defender is trying to get back and play the ball but accidentally clips his opponent--the Law change was supposed to excuse this sort of foul from being a red, but the text really doesn't do that. I think a case could have been made for red here even without more direction. I had yellow, but it's close--very close. That said, it's a pull or a trip or a challenge... really doesn't matter. IF the other factors for DOGSO are ticked, then this is a red card because there's no attempt to play the ball and no possibility to play the ball. It's a cynical foul and not the sort of foul that was meant to be excluded.
This seems simple to me (doesn't it all). Based on the restart, the foul must have taken place in the penalty area. By the time the attacker was in the penalty area the ball was at least two yards in front of him, and the defender behind him. The defender had no chance to play the ball = Send off.
Wolfgang Stark has been reffing in the Bundesliga since the mid-nineties. I would suggest that, in this case, he went with his years of training and gave a RC for DOGSO. Oops.
It does look old laws DOGSO from the video and it shows even the most experienced will have to work to adjust. For the member who stated that the referee would need to make very obvious hand signals to show his call, I can say that we are coached not to do that at the higher levels here as the referee signal is then used in evidence when clubs appeal against fines/suspension (video evidence obviously). I don't know what the coaching is in Germany but if they too go by the view that the referee doesn't need to explain themselves don't expect ref gesticulation.
Hence why I think a lot of people are not comfortable with the parsing of which foul is red which is yellow under the new law. It is both traditional and practical for soccer referees to not have to give an exact foul on what they call. Classic in field example, Player: What's the call? Ref: Tripping. Player: No I kicked him. Ref: Well dang I guess you got me?!
Late to the conversation, but three observations FWTW: 1. The contact appears to start outside the area and to continue inside. Assuming that to be true (and setting aside for the moment the "cynical so send off even in the area" part), that means (on the "non-cynical" variety of foul) the ref has a choice: Call the foul outside the area and give the red, or call it inside and give the PK. What should our default choice be in that situation? I'd say inside/PK, because that's the more serious offense, even if arguably not the more serious consequence. And I don't think we have the luxury of call-it-both-ways-ref, i.e., "You fouled him outside the area so it's a send off, and you also fouled him in the area so it's also a PK." I think we have to go one way or the other. 2. I don't think there's any such thing as "not really cynical" on a play like this in a professional match. Of course it's cynical, good "It wasn't me" acting notwithstanding. I think the upshot of the Law change is that beaten defenders now can get away with certain otherwise-cynical fouls in the area without fear of the DOGSO red, so long as they make a good-enough show of attempting to play the ball. 3. You all know this of course, but it's perhaps worth clarifying nonetheless. It's not "deliberate holds or pulls or pushes with no attempt to play the ball;" it's: There was not the remotest attempt or possibility to play the ball here, so there's not really much to talk about in that respect, is there? It doesn't matter precisely what the foul was; it's a red card inside or outside the area regardless. Having said all that, I'm very interested in the philosophical offshoot that some have mentioned, viz. should the change in the Law be taken to imply that we are now supposed to be looking for justifications for not awarding the DOGSO send off?
Bubba made most of the points I had thought about but I'm still quite surprised at how this foul is viewed. I don't think this is a type of foul that was meant to be excused by the law change, lower league clumsiness aside (and I think we all can agree that it was the professional game that prompted this law change) I think you are seriously downgrading this kind of foul. Not only is there absolutely no attempt to play the ball but this kind of cutting cross the heels play also usually have an inherent "I'm innocent cause I didn't mean it" component (see the Mascherano example above). How is this not a clearly cynical foul?
I guess it depends on what/when you see the foul. On the initial contact (which was outside the PA), he was almost even, and was seeking to challenge, but was unsuccessful. The subsequent contact, as I see it, is the tangle of that initial foul, not another foul. But if you don't see the initial contact as the foul, I can see how you can get where you do. (Btw, I hadn't listened before - the announcer actually nailed the LOTG reason for red, observing the ref must have deemed no attempt to play the ball. We gripe enough that we should give props when deserved.)
Can't see how you can view the grab/pull and the trip as a continuous action. Different acts, different fouls (not sure I see the first act as a challenge for the ball either tbh). Not certain I see either acts as a foul but that's a different discussion I guess. True true, top marks for this guy.
Must be a European thing. Wanting your announcers to know something about the sport for which they commentate.
We are rolling out the new Laws including DOGSO for calendar 2017, to be promulgated in Entry classes this Jan/Feb and recerts this Nov/Dec. I am thrilled at the prospect that our recerts are online and we will be asked to incorporate this new info without the benefit of live discussion. At the least the Entry class still has an in-class component.
I'm not suggesting continuous action -- which only applies to holding. I'm saying it looks like they just got tangled up a as a result of an initial foul.
South Texas chose to require that recerts include a classroom segment for just that reason, There are so many changes that require discussion.