PotW 24 - DOGSO

Discussion in 'MLS Referee Forum' started by GlennAA11, Aug 24, 2017.

Tags:
  1. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    This week's PotW is all about DOGSO under the new interpretations.

    They used the send off in Portland last week for the foul outside the penalty area. And they revisit the rescinded red card from last week in the Houston game with input from IFAB apparently. They now seem to be claiming that any "attempt" to play the ball no matter how late or half-assed is enough to save you from a red card if it happens in the penalty area.
     
  2. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Glad you brought this up. I read it yesterday and it led me to an interesting discovery. Namely that the DOGSO language for fouls in the penalty area has already been amended from the 2016-17 LOTG to the 2017-18 version.

    We had debates here last year because for a yellow card to be awarded for DOGSO in the penalty area, the LOTG explicitly said a challenge had to be an attempt for the ball AND the defender had to have an opportunity to play the ball. I took the line that this was a very high standard; others argued that it was essentially redundant and was trying to say the same thing.

    It looks like the others were right with the spirit of the LOTG but that the IFAB accepted the language was poorly chosen. The current version of the LOTG simply say, as you point out (and Elleray says in the article) that it has to be an attempt to play the ball. Whether or not the defender has a chance to play the ball is now used as an example of a negative mitigating factor, so it's still there. But it's not the heart of the Law, like it was in last year's version.
     
  3. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That change saddens me. How can you be attempting to play the ball when you CANT play the ball?!
     
  4. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Not all players are good judges of what they can reach. I can attempt to play a ball that I am not quite fast enough or skilled enough to reach.
     
  5. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Should poor judgement excuse you? Does attempting the impossible still count as an attempt when you were never going to be able to accomplish the end goal? It's a circular philosophical argument but I'm just frustrated with the mentality that we should excuse poor decisions.
     
  6. sulfur

    sulfur Member

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    No, but the logic (as was explained by Elleray in a number of interviews last year when the 16/17 edition was being released) stated things like "we want to see soccer plays" and "holding, pushing, handling are, by their very nature, unfair." [Note: not actual quotes, but paraphrases of what was said]

    So, the 17/18 wording comes more in line with the agenda that they were trying to go with and the interpretation that UEFA (at the least) was pushing.
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  7. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And that's all good and well. I don't plan to make waves or go rogue. I ref by the laws and that doesn't change dependending on my moral belief but as a point I don't like when changes are made to ignore responsibility.

    That all said, it is still up to the referee and not the player to determine if they think it was an attempt to play the ball.
     
  8. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not having a real opportunity to play the ball is still listed in the LOTG as an example that could be a factor in the decision-making process. As the Law change explanation says, this should not be a change in application--it's just a clarification of wording.

    For someone like me, who read the 2016-17 Laws literally, it now means that not having to a real opportunity to play the ball is a factor in trying to figure out if the player was making an attempt on the ball rather than being a separate requirement itself.
     
    socal lurker repped this.
  9. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    ^^^
    This.

    And it really goes back to the original intent of DOGSO: eliminate cynical fouls. We aren't excusing the poor judgment: we are punishing with a PK and caution. And I think for the plays that @fairplayforlife is most concerned about, it isn't going to be too difficult for the referee to conclude that the lack of an ability to play the ball was the final straw in concluding that the play was not an attempt to play the ball.
     
  10. jarbitro

    jarbitro Member

    Mar 13, 2003
    N'Djamena, Tchad
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My favorite part of that play was Salazar pointing the formerly sent-off player back onto the field. I'd only see the point given for "off the field" with the red. this was the fist time I'd seen it for "back onto the pitch for you"
    I also like that Salazar let the defender listen to his conversation with the AR. The defender was respectful and not interrupting, so there was no sense in sending him away. I mean, the result wasn't going to be secret, so the conversation didn't have to be secret either.
    Finally, this shows just how hard these new instructions are to enforce. Here is a pretty straight-forward play with some of our best officials, they saw the same thing, Salazar took his time (its not like he came running in with a card out or anything), and still ended up with a conversation with the AR and had to reverse course. I can only think that at the amateur level or even lower divisions its just going to be extremely difficult to get these calls right.
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  11. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think I'm the vast majority of cases you are right. Unfortunately when it comes to the laws the players and leagues tend to interpret a change as an opportunity to take a mile when they were really only given an inch.
     
  12. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    Personally I've always thought that this change to the law was a solution in search of a problem. It was really just a bunch of British pundits who had their knickers in a twist over this "triple punishment" thing. And they made enough noise that the IFAB - which is half British -decided they need to do something.
     
    refinDC, RedStar91 and fairplayforlife repped this.
  13. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    ^^^ This
     
  14. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I disagree. It is a swinging pendulum. The professional fouls concept was designed to eliminate cynical fouls. The rule was expanded because referees weren't applying it to cynical fouls where they should. So they took away much of the discretion. That was over inclusive, as we were now sending off players for "honest" fouls-- which was never really the intent, but was necessary to consistently capture the cynical fouls. We don't mind the over inclusion when a good opportunity is really lost (fouls outside the PA). But the over inclusion does seem overly harsh when the PK is as good a scoring opportunity (sometimes better, sometimes almost as good) as before the foul. Forget the rhetoric about triple punishment, at the core it was about sending off a player for an honest foul that really didn't even disadvantage the other team. ("Triple punishment" was just a good rhetorical advice.) so the change was designed to require both that it was an honest foul and that a great scoring opportunity remains (the PK). This, to me, is fully consistent, in concept, with what does and doesn't deserve the harsh punishment of a send off. But it's really hard to implement in a way that really addresses the issue. And while I support the concept, I'm not yet sure that the implementation really gets to what it is trying to do and can truly be applied consistently.
     
    usaref repped this.
  15. GoDawgsGo

    GoDawgsGo Member+

    Nov 11, 2010
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I understand what you're getting at, but ultimately it's still a judgement call by you the referee on that day within the spirit of that game. Just do what feels right in your gut based on the law.
     

Share This Page