Jump to content

Linlithgow Rose - 2019 onwards


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, FuzzyBear said:

Is that not only the case if the defender makes an "attempt" to get the ball which Cammy clearly didn't.

Not sure of that scenario tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FuzzyBear said:

Is that not only the case if the defender makes an "attempt" to get the ball which Cammy clearly didn't.

There's only two options, either:

the ref thought it was DOGSO and was therefore incorrect in law by only giving a YC, or:

the ref didn't think it was DOGSO (a matter of opinion) and therefore was correct in law by only giving a YC. 

Despite not being in control of the ball I would say it probably was DOGSO, so it should've been a RC.

Edited by Ginaro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only two options, either:
the ref thought it was DOGSO and was therefore incorrect in law by only giving a YC, or:
the ref didn't think it was DOGSO (a matter of opinion) and therefore was correct in law by only giving a YC. 
Despite not being in control of the ball I would say it probably was DOGSO, so it should've been a RC.

You’ve probably nailed it with the last bit. If you aren’t in control of the ball it’s not a DOGSO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the second penalty, I thought the defender was attempting to get to the ball, but in doing so, collided / impeded the forward. Therefore, yellow card. 

The first penalty was much the same, the goalkeeper was attempting to get the ball, but impeded the forward - yellow card.

Both scenarios were much the same, in my opinion.

At the Linlithgow penalty, the Tranent centre half impeded Gary and as far as I could see, no yellow card, was this the case? If so,  did the ref think the centre half went for the ball, which is questionable, as the corner had just been taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/06/2022 at 23:27, Ginaro said:

There's only two options, either:

the ref thought it was DOGSO and was therefore incorrect in law by only giving a YC, or:

the ref didn't think it was DOGSO (a matter of opinion) and therefore was correct in law by only giving a YC. 

Despite not being in control of the ball I would say it probably was DOGSO, so it should've been a RC.

The partial removal of ‘double jeopardy’ completely changed things, so you are wrong. Inside the box, a penalty is given and if it was a genuine attempt to play the ball, then it’s only a yellow, even if it was DOGSO. Only if it was not a genuine attempt to play the ball is it still a DOGSO red. So for instance push, pull etc.. Any DOGSO where a penalty doesn’t result (so foul outside the box) is still a red, regardless of whether a genuine attempt or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ann Dan Otherthing said:

The partial removal of ‘double jeopardy’ completely changed things, so you are wrong. Inside the box, a penalty is given and if it was a genuine attempt to play the ball, then it’s only a yellow, even if it was DOGSO. Only if it was not a genuine attempt to play the ball is it still a DOGSO red. So for instance push, pull etc.. Any DOGSO where a penalty doesn’t result (so foul outside the box) is still a red, regardless of whether a genuine attempt or not.

If you'd watched the video you would know it was a push and I am correct.

On 11/06/2022 at 21:33, justinjest said:

At the second penalty, I thought the defender was attempting to get to the ball, but in doing so, collided / impeded the forward. Therefore, yellow card. 

Both scenarios were much the same, in my opinion.

At the Linlithgow penalty, the Tranent centre half impeded Gary and as far as I could see, no yellow card, was this the case? If so,  did the ref think the centre half went for the ball, which is questionable, as the corner had just been taken.

You should probably rewatch the second penalty then get your eyes checked if you still think that was an attempt to get the ball.

The Linlithgow penalty was not denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity so none of the previous discussion applies, no sanction required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ginaro said:

If you'd watched the video you would know it was a push and I am correct.

You should probably rewatch the second penalty then get your eyes checked if you still think that was an attempt to get the ball.

The Linlithgow penalty was not denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity so none of the previous discussion applies, no sanction required.

Well that clears that up then. Sorry for having a different view to you.

Defender is watching the ball as it's crossed, his eyes are on the ball, not the forward, but that's just my opinion.

A cross heading to the centre half, who has a chance of getting a header goalwards, is a potential goalscoring chance, but once again, just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Andydoc said:

Well that clears that up then. Sorry for having a different view to you.

Defender is watching the ball as it's crossed, his eyes are on the ball, not the forward, but that's just my opinion.

A cross heading to the centre half, who has a chance of getting a header goalwards, is a potential goalscoring chance, but once again, just my opinion.

Doesn't matter where the defender is looking, it is a a push from behind so not an attempt to play the ball - the laws of the game say: the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

DOGSO is an denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity not just a potential one, so that cross for the Rose penalty is certainly not DOGSO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/06/2022 at 22:59, Ginaro said:

If you'd watched the video you would know it was a push and I am correct.

You should probably rewatch the second penalty then get your eyes checked if you still think that was an attempt to get the ball.

The Linlithgow penalty was not denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity so none of the previous discussion applies, no sanction required.

You’re right, I haven’t watched the vid. Your 2 options therefore needed a 3rd - the ref considered it was DOGSO, but that the challenge was genuine and so yellow carded.
Albeit if it it was a push, that would probably be wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooft - some night at the Rose. Good to get them in early so get a full pre-season together. 

Sad to see Willis go. Was excellent at centre half, especially as he was playing out of position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think Wallace will be in the u20s so that would leave 6 brought in so need to see a few leave as well.

Hare has gone, Shaw on list and rumours Reilly going to Broomhill. If another 3 go guessing it will be McPherson, Halloran and Dublin-Green.

Edited by FuzzyBear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed Sandy Cunningham who was LTHV captain and striker last season.
BU reject or was it Rejected the BU ?!!!

Sandy Cunningham was one of our promising signings last year. We got him from LTHV. Played one game then he said the travelling was too much and he was allowed to return to LTHV.

From what I saw he looked a very good player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...