July 24, 2014

Video Training: Stopping a Promising Attack 1


The following match situation is taken from Cameroon - Brazil (World Cup 2014) and belongs to the category Assessing the Level of Punishment.
You are warmly encouraged to participate in discussion by answering the poll or placing a comment. Our solution for this situation including the re-start of play will be published soon.


Interpretation:

Green defensive player #12 clearly holds Yellow attacking player #7 and thus stops a promising attack. Players, who stop promising attacks, must be cautioned with a yellow card.

89% of the users agreed with this interpretation.

In this case, the referee did not caution the player given the early moment in the game and only warned him verbally. This can be helpful in matches where it is recommended to start with a clear leniency allowing the referee to increase the level of disciplinary sanctions in a stepwise manner. However, referees should be reminded that they should issue clear yellow cards regardless of the moment in the game. Keep in mind that it might be also helpful to set a clear signal right at the start of the play that the illegal interference of promising attack will not be tolerated throughout the match (otherwise the likelihood is high that players will repeat this kind of misconduct, as they did not get cautioned).

Players who are about to enter the penalty area from the side with dynamic pace are often in a dangerous position to pass the ball to a large number of teammates who can receive the ball. These scenarios mostly are promising attacks. 

4 Comments:

  1. Foul to the neck and/or head is almost a mandatory yellow card. Would like to see this being implemented into the actual LOTG soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would strongly disagree. The severity of fouls must be left to the decision of the referee, not predetermined by minimal sanctions based on the location of the foul. In hockey, they have that kind of minimal sanctions and it is frankly absurd. For istance, high sticking (hitting an opponent in the face with one's stick) is a 2-minute penalty; if the opponent bleeds, it is 4 minutes. That is ridiculous!

      We want to have referees who can think and appreciate situations, not merely tick boxes on a form and hand out the resulting punishment. THe point of contact is already part of the "considerations" for fouls; I don't see why anything more is necessary.

      Delete
  2. Direct free kick and caution as it broke up a promising attack.

    The foul in its own right was not reckless, however the main considerations are the location of the incident and the direction/speed the player was travelling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi everybody. I'm a new person here and this is my first comment here. I dont speak english very fluently so please dont confuse if I have some problems with my texts.
    But first of all, Niclas and co, you have a great blog! I really appericiate that.
    But so, about the video, Takas you cant think is this situation careless or reckless. It doesnt matter because in that case the foul is holding and you cant evaluate that kind of fouls careless/reckless/excessive force.

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger