One is Law 12, that discusses that handball must be deliberate.
The more 'obvious' Law (like the pun?) that needs to be changed is the red card for Denial of Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity of Law 12.
If a DOGSO foul occurs in the box, this creates a "triple punishment," whereby the offender is sent off and the team goes down a man, a penalty kick is awarded, and the offender receives a red card.
This can be seen when Chelsea goalkeeper was sent off in a game against Manchester City earlier this month.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dyVEkHObOXE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And I saw a Tweet from a fellow Chelsea supporter.
Alexi Lalas interviewed new FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who said, “Triple punishments you know very well, red card, and penalty, and then suspension, this has also been changed after 10 years that everybody wanted to change it from now on. If the goalkeeper tries really to catch the ball but commits the foul, well he will not be red carded, but only yellow carded.” (The interview was on Fox, but you can hear the clip on the Mutant Gene Podcast.)
I wasn’t sure if this applied just to goalkeepers, so I reached out to Shaka Hislop on Twitter. Shaka was appointed by FIFA to serve on an advisory panel for the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which really has the power and authority to change and alter the Laws of the game. Shaka confirmed that beginning June 1, the interpretation of DOGSO will be any player, not just a goalkeeper, who doesn’t intentionally foul will receive a yellow card not a red card.
In doing a little bit more research on this, I found this excellent blog on the issue.
My primary concern was whether "intentionally" would create the same heartburn that "deliberate" creates with handball. See my previous post about Michael Parkhurst being sent off in Orlando in 2015 and the ensuing debate/discussion on whether it even was a handball.
However, according to this article's quotations of the IFAB document, there are specific instances that would result in a red card:
- Holding
- Pulling
- Pushing
- No attempt to play the ball
- No possibility to play the ball
- Otherwise punishable by a red card (Serious Foul Play or Violent Conduct)
In my opinion, this is fantastic! It completely removes the ambiguity from the rule and even takes away some ambiguity/discretion a referee may otherwise have.
It is unlikely that PRO will put this new interpretation into effect until the 2017 season, but it's worth it to take a look at some recent plays.
First, the play from Columbus vs. NYCFC, when Unkel, according to PRO, incorrectly called DOGSO.
Second, the play from this weekend when Tyler Deric was sent off by Stott in the Columbus vs. Houston match, which PRO said DOGSO was the correct call.
Both of the PRO articles about the criteria in determining DOGSO:
- The distance between the offense and the goal
- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- The direction of play
- The location and number of defenders
- The offense which denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity may be an offense that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick
Finally, one last no-call to take a look at. Jair Marrufo is back in match-ruining mode, and did not call a PK or DOGSO here. I haven't seen or heard anything from PRO regarding this particular play yet.
A part of me believes that the latter two plays saw no calls because of all the people being crybabies about too many red cards. I continue to believe that PRO is making strides to improve refereeing, and hopefully, the new DOGSO interpretation will create consistency in the calls on these plays.Moments before Wondolowski's PK goal Dwyer goes down on the opposite end. PK or na? pic.twitter.com/r8SSXYq5nv— Sporting Kansas City (@SportingKC) April 24, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment