RateTheRef

The ball was in playing distance. The defender jumped in low to try and get the ball but brought the attacker down. There could be an argument that the defender knew exactly what he was doing but you cannot catagorically say he didn't try and get the ball.  A good decision.

It could be argued that some referees are using this grey area as a means of avoiding their responsibilities.  DOGSO was originally brought in to eliminate the "professional foul" and because it was generally accepted that we wanted to see more goals and goal opportunities than foul challenges.  The object of the game, after all, is to score goals.

The art of defending is knowing when (and when not to) make a challenge.  Reducing the sanction for what is deemed to be a "genuine attempt to play the ball" was predicted by some to be a mistake that would lead to more foul challenges and more areas of doubt and confusion.  And so it have proved to be.  It is also giving referees the opportunity to hide behind the "genuine attempt to play the ball" clause to avoid making the correct decision in law.

This was such a case yesterday and I have seen others recently (although the Christmas fog means I cannot cite the actual games).  I suspect people will say that I am looking for reasons to send player off and that a good referee does exactly the opposite.   While that is a commendable attribute, the Laws of the game to not often permit this and the game would be better served if the Laws were applied as written. 

If you look at how Rugby Union is changing is Laws to reduce the danger to players you will see an example of how a governing body has set out what it wants to do maintained a steadfast approach in the face of a significant increase in red and yellow cards in high profile games.  The same cannot be said of Football.