Like in the Suarez incident, this was the case where the opportunity awarded the fouled team that was denied in a DOSGO, the PK, was a far less than what was taken away by the defense. Suarez handled the ball that would be 100% in the back of the net. In this case, the attacker was already past the goalkeeper with an empty net ahead of him. Not exactly 100% but a much higher percentage of success than a PK. This is something that really cant be rectified in the laws today.
So any handball, deliberate or not is a DFK? Because “deliberate” means you have to decide whether they meant it. Similarly “attempt” means you have to infer intent Maybe neither of you are native speakers of English, because that is the plain meaning of both words.
First, DOGSO handling is NOT the same as DOGSO foul. Those are two separate misconduct offenses listed in the LOTG and were even before the DOGSO yellow changes from two years ago. Your confusion seems to stem from not understanding those are two completely separate offense and the addition of DOGSO yellow only pertains to DOGSO foul. Nothing about DOGSO handling has changed. Are there 'accidental' fouls? Sure. But you're in the referee forum. We stick to the LOTG here. You won't find the word accident in that book as it pertains to this subject or fouls at all. They either happen or they don't happen. They're either careless, reckless, or with excessive force. Whether you think it is an accident or not is not relevant. This particular foul was a careless tripping foul in which the defender made an honest attempt to play the ball = DOGOS Yellow. The defender either made an attempt to play the ball (yellow) or didn't (red). If you want to over complicate things for yourself by adding additional language to it so that it makes sense for you, feel free.
This is the common problem we have on here. "Deliberate" in the laws of the game does not mean "deliberate" has defined in a dictionary. Most deliberate handball fouls aren't a result of the player intentionally handling the ball.
Ok, so maybe reading really isn’t your strong suit. I didn’t say they were the same thing. They’re two DIFFERENT examples where intent has to be inferred to apply the laws as written. It is logically impossibly to distinguish deliberate handling from accidental handling without distinguishing intent. On the second point, a player goes in. How do you determine whether a player was “honest” in the “attempt” to play the ball or not? You have to decide the intent or you don’t know what color card to draw You keep using English words that inherently mean you have to judge what the effort was intended todo and then deny that what they player meant to do in your estimation is irrelevant. That’s ridiculous as a matter of basic logic
No, you’re just not making good points. Keep in mind one can deliberately handle the ball without doing so intentionally. For instance, a player may see a butterfly floating past, reach up to grab it, and handle the ball that happens to be coming through at the same time. We are trained to take in several clues to decide whether it was “deliberate,” but we need not know what he was reaching for. We see a hand extended which then strikes the ball. He acted deliberately, but may not have intended to touch the ball. An extreme example, but that seems welcome in the present discussion. The law (not “the laws”) is rife with opinions distinguishing intentional acts from deliberate ones. Your belief that judging actions requires judging intent is simply not accurate.
Well, your options are to: A - take your issues about not understanding the logic or lack thereof in the LOTG to IFAB and have them rewrite them just for you so they make sense to you B - form your own soccer entity and own league and write your own rules however you wish so that everyone is able judge intent just as you see fit C - I dunno, keep entertaining us here a bit? You know what's really going to bug you? The word intent actually used to be in the LOTG. Man, I bet your mind f'ed now! IFAB gives us what they give us. Whether you or I like it or not isn't really relevant.
My impression is that IFAB intends "deliberate" to mean something like having one's arms in a position other than the most "natural" place for them to be*. The idea being that the player consciously placed his arms there. They can be there for any reason or no reason at all, but if the hand/arm contacts the ball while it's in that position, there is very likely a handling offense. *And also, of course, if the arms are in a "natural" place but the player fails to move them out of the way of in oncoming ball when there was time to do so, that's also an offense.
I don’t think you have a particularly deep understanding of what the guidance is. You position makes zero sense. Of course, a dog can be trained to perform in rote manner without understanding the how and why of it. So it seems with you. So you go about judging “honest attempts” and “unnatural positions” without the slightest understanding of why those are part of the practice. Understanding the rationales and intent would probably help you, but I’m not going to bother trying to teach you
And yet you seem to fail to grasp that the clues are heuristics for whether the arm is there from the natural consequence of moving or evince, yes, some deliberate act. (Intentional, by the way, does not distinguish between intending the result, specific intent, or intending the action of placing the arm where it was, which is general intent. Both are, however, intentional and you can’t ajudge “deliberate” without some indication of general intent) Anyway, forget it. I know when I encounter folks intent on not understanding what’s plainly in front of them.
Presumably because his failure to remove them shows you he had, egads, an INTENT to leave them there There isn’t a single aspect of these two rules you can reduce to heuristics without having a rationale that isn’t grounded in an inference of intent. You can’t Otherwise law 12 should strike “deliberate” and replace it with something like “in a position more than 8 inches from the ribcage” or something that doesn’t get into what has some alternate explanation Anyway, this conversation is a waste of everyone’s time
Clearly you are the expert! Let us all know when your next game is and we'll come watch you referee Why did you come to this forum again? Had questions? Seeking answers? Didn't like the answers so now no one here is qualified enough for you? Good luck in your search for eternal truth my friend
Like I said, if it bothers you so much then fly to the UK and go let IFAB know how you feel. Please keep us updated on your endeavors. Also, San Jose is sitting on 12 points in 17 matches, ouch.
Your “I have to end this conversation because you people are too dumb to handle me” shtick must go over really well during assessments.
Oh, that was the least of my worries.... And I don’t ref much anymore because of injuries. Can’t really sprint much without risking new injuries. I don't play anymore either. I pitch in when the local leagues are short handed for the u-littles mostly. That's part of why I don't know any new rules since about 2015. And to be perfectly honest, even at my peak, I was a pretty terrible referee. Good enough to allow the matches to be run, but still got enough calls wrong to get everyone mad and get discouraged. But hey, everyone needs something they love, but are terrible at.
And yeah. San Jose is like rooting for the Cubbies back in the day. One does it for local loyalty, not out of any expectation of quality. I was kind of stoked when beitashour made the Iranian national team then the stinker leaves and the scores on us. Ain’t that the way
@GoDawgsGo @Guinho cool it. This is your warning; next incident of ad hominem attacks from either of you puts a thread ban on the table.
FWIW, Dr. Joe owned up to his DOGSO mistake on Twitter. No idea if it was mentioned in the post match analysis.
I'm pretty sure, at least in NHL hockey, that a last-man penalty with an empty net results in a goal being given. That seems analogous to a defender reaching up and swatting the ball away before it goes into goal.
Why does there need to be two coin flips? One coin flip, winner chooses either goal or decides to go first or second. Loser of the coin flip gets second choice (either choosing goal or whether or not to go first or second in KFTM). Also, when are they going to introduce ABBA?