DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82958--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: RCG
Date: September 21, 2024, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe because the initial DOGSO was written with express
mention to direct free kicks. Therefore you could not be
dismissed for commiting an IDFK offence (ie Dangerous play, GK
handling backpack within area etc). Maybe it is time to look at
these offences again given how the game has changed *as
mentioned above
#Post#: 83048--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: September 22, 2024, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ARF link ---
>
> [quote author=Affy_Moose link=topic=6255.msg82924#msg82924
date=1726750347]
> You're relying on a wrongful understanding of 'legitimate'.
The context very clearly means 'as opposed to collecting the
ball AFTER leaving the area without it'.
>
--- End Quote ---
No, it really doesn't. 99.9% of the time when this situation
arises it will be when the goalkeeper does has legitimate
possession of the ball in the first place, i.e. not having just
released it and then caught it again. And the IFAB advice is
very clearly written with that in mind, and not the 0.1% chance
that the goalkeeper may have already been illegally handling the
ball prior to handling it outside the area. The idea of the
goalkeeper illegally catching the ball in his own area being
regarded as "legitimate possession" is utterly absurd.
[/quote]
It doesn’t say that.
It says words to the effect of ‘if the goalkeeper leaves the
penalty area with the ball in his hands, he *already has
legitimate* control of it’. This is explicitly written to
demonstrate why DOGSO can’t occur.
The attachment is the post that’s been referred to.
There’s no ‘if’ nor even an allusion to it. If makes zero
reference to the circumstances that led to the goalkeeper having
the ball in his hands whilst being in the area.
If you wish to argue that a pass back or double touch resulting
in handling that carries outwith the area can be sanctioned as
DOGSO, this IFAB memo isn’t it.
#Post#: 83049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: September 22, 2024, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Arbitre anglais link ---
>
> It’s highlighted an aspect of the LOAF I’ve never understood,
and asked senior people about before, which is very inconsistent
in my opinion - why does the GK get a free pass to potentially
stop a definite goal? For example, if there is a deliberate
backpass to the GK which he misjudges and which is then rolling
towards goal, why does he get to deliberately (knowing it’s not
allowed) dive on the pass to stop a goal but only give away an
IDF? Could happen much easier these days due to the way goal
kicks are now taken (not needing to leave the area). Why not
just make the law simpler - any offence which DOGSO??
>
--- End Quote ---
Because the pass pack law exists to prevent time-wasting, not
create a game-changing event like a penalty does.
The game doesn’t want to create jeopardy and disproportionate
outcomes from minor ‘offences’. It’s why DOGSO was changed, and
also why Law 11 ‘deliberate play’ was updated.
The game had ended up with highly disproportionate outcomes for
often trivial mistakes. An IFAB member once told me that Law 11
was never meant to be a ‘gotcha’ for deliberate play by
defenders, but has resulted in ridiculous situations, and
penalised ‘normal’ play. Hence the reasonably recent changes.
#Post#: 83143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: September 24, 2024, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why is the referee wearing a kit that is so similar to East
Fife's?
#Post#: 83245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Wollongong Ref
Date: September 27, 2024, 7:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe the Scottish refs only have Black , Yellow and Orange
shirts to wear. With a team in Black and Yellow stripes the
orange was the only choice? Not a good option agreed.
It is my criticism of the new Addison range, they are all pale
.pastel coloured that kind of blend into each other. THis is
where bolder colours work better.
#Post#: 83290--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Tweed
Date: September 29, 2024, 2:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pink and Turquoise too.
#Post#: 83355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: September 30, 2024, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Wollongong Ref link ---
>
> I believe the Scottish refs only have Black , Yellow and
Orange shirts to wear. With a team in Black and Yellow stripes
the orange was the only choice? Not a good option agreed.
> It is my criticism of the new Addison range, they are all pale
.pastel coloured that kind of blend into each other. THis is
where bolder colours work better.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes - the last two years we had a ‘red’ that was far more
railway-worker orange and clashed with no one.
We’ve no got pastel colours which clash with a lot. The blue or
green will likely be added next summer (and very much needed).
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page