Liverpool/Cardiff

GraemeS said:

Agree with this (well, the final paragraph at least, not the tin-foil-hat first two!)

But as discussed, the law is clear that for simultaneous offences, (ie. one action that may be an offence in multiple ways), you can only punish one, the most serious. Yellow but almost a red for DOGSO and yellow but almost a red for SFP can't be stacked into a red card. It feels a bit iffy of course, but I think it doesn't quite pass the threshold for either offence, so yellow is right.

Click to expand...

I wear my tin foil hat to prevent Stockley Park from transmitting directly into my head. United are robbed!

Martiju said:

The fact that this has already caused three pages of debate shows that it isn't at all a clear decision. On first sight I was certainly concerned about it being SFP (never really thought it was DOGSO, given distance & proximity) but the replays showing glancing contact below the ankle made me doubt that. That said, if it had been given, I could've seen why.

It is then, to me, a classically 'orange' card. As referees, we also know that you can't combine the 'nearly DOGSO' and 'nearly SFP' to come up with a red. Plenty of players, managers, pundits and fans can do that - but we shouldn't.

Click to expand...

You don't need to "combine" them. Just call whichever you fancy as RC. No-one's going to say that's a C&O error.

(Except maybe some mad VAR.)

Martiju said:

The fact that this has already caused three pages of debate shows that it isn't at all a clear decision. On first sight I was certainly concerned about it being SFP (never really thought it was DOGSO, given distance & proximity) but the replays showing glancing contact below the ankle made me doubt that. That said, if it had been given, I could've seen why.

It is then, to me, a classically 'orange' card. As referees, we also know that you can't combine the 'nearly DOGSO' and 'nearly SFP' to come up with a red. Plenty of players, managers, pundits and fans can do that - but we shouldn't.

Click to expand...

My esteemed colleague, Uefa cat 1, elite, has a no orange policy, Orange is, red
I dont always subscribe to it however, its done him no harm
No doubt he would have went red here.

Ryanj91 said:

Can someone clarify why so many refs here think this is NOT Dogso?

Leicester's goal is proof why this was 100% DOGSO.
Empty net, no real challenge from a defender. Like what else do you need?

If a defender pulled the player back and the keeper was in his goal, everyone would say DOGSO, so why is this different when the chance to score is miles better.

Click to expand...

In no particular order these factors came into my mind when watching it;

- Distance from goal. It’s still a long way
- General direction fo play; he’s not heading directly towards goal;
-Likelihood of recovering the ball of not fouled is 50/50.
- The other defender isn’t covering goal (lends to DOGSO), but is in a good position to recover or at least challenge for the ball again (anti-DOGSO argument)
- Overall skill level of players involved (Championship strugglers vs top end Premier league side so massive gulf in quality here)

While I could accept a red card here, I’m satisfied with yellow. It feels more to me a POSSIBLE goal scoring opportunity, not and OBVIOUS one.

Citing the Leicester goal is misleading, as it was far closer to goal than this was.

Tealeaf said:

In no particular order these factors came into my mind when watching it;

- Distance from goal. It’s still a long way
- General direction fo play; he’s not heading directly towards goal;
-Likelihood of recovering the ball of not fouled is 50/50.
- The other defender isn’t covering goal (lends to DOGSO), but is in a good position to recover or at least challenge for the ball again (anti-DOGSO argument)
- Overall skill level of players involved (Championship strugglers vs top end Premier league side so massive gulf in quality here)

While I could accept a red card here, I’m satisfied with yellow. It feels more to me a POSSIBLE goal scoring opportunity, not and OBVIOUS one.

Citing the Leicester goal is misleading, as it was far closer to goal than this was.

Click to expand...

A bit closer and the angle was severely against him.

Cardiff player had to collect the ball to the left of the pitch, still very central and roll it into an empty net.

Its almost denial of a certain goal rather than an opportunity.

The only thing I semi agree with is the distance, but like mentioned, there is no obstacles between the player and an empty net. One touch to control and one to shoot into an empty net.

Much higher chance of scoring than being pulled back 30 yards out to prevent a 1 on 1 with the keeper.

Tealeaf said:

In no particular order these factors came into my mind when watching it;

- Distance from goal. It’s still a long way
- General direction fo play; he’s not heading directly towards goal;
-Likelihood of recovering the ball of not fouled is 50/50.
- The other defender isn’t covering goal (lends to DOGSO), but is in a good position to recover or at least challenge for the ball again (anti-DOGSO argument)
- Overall skill level of players involved (Championship strugglers vs top end Premier league side so massive gulf in quality here)

While I could accept a red card here, I’m satisfied with yellow. It feels more to me a POSSIBLE goal scoring opportunity, not and OBVIOUS one.

Citing the Leicester goal is misleading, as it was far closer to goal than this was.

Click to expand...

He's not heading directly toward goal because he's trying to avoid the GK's foul.

And surely we can't favour the less skilful team because the Prem League team is better. That's awful. If they were that good, he wouldn't have to be fouled to stop him scoring. The GK would not have done if he didn't think there was a good chance of giving away a goal.

[

Tealeaf said:

In no particular order these factors came into my mind when watching it;

- Distance from goal. It’s still a long way
- General direction fo play; he’s not heading directly towards goal;
-Likelihood of recovering the ball of not fouled is 50/50.
- The other defender isn’t covering goal (lends to DOGSO), but is in a good position to recover or at least challenge for the ball again (anti-DOGSO argument)
- Overall skill level of players involved (Championship strugglers vs top end Premier league side so massive gulf in quality here)

While I could accept a red card here, I’m satisfied with yellow. It feels more to me a POSSIBLE goal scoring opportunity, not and OBVIOUS one.

Citing the Leicester goal is misleading, as it was far closer to goal than this was.

Click to expand...

Not going to argue with you.

One thing I would add is that they do not need to be heading directly towards goal. But that the overall movement is towards the goal. In this case I'm hard pressed to argue that's not the case here.

All opinions of course.

bloovee said:

He's not heading directly toward goal because he's trying to avoid the GK's foul.

And surely we can't favour the less skilful team because the Prem League team is better. That's awful. If they were that good, he wouldn't have to be fouled to stop him scoring. The GK would not have done if he didn't think there was a good chance of giving away a goal.

Click to expand...

you do not need to be heading directly to goal for dogso,

really important newer refs dont confuse this.

bloovee said:

He's not heading directly toward goal because he's trying to avoid the GK's foul.

And surely we can't favour the less skilful team because the Prem League team is better. That's awful. If they were that good, he wouldn't have to be fouled to stop him scoring. The GK would not have done if he didn't think there was a good chance of giving away a goal.

Click to expand...

If this was the case you would disregard all Sunday league Dogso based on skill alone (no offence to any Sunday league players here)

JamesL said:

[
Not going to argue with you.

One thing I would add is that they do not need to be heading directly towards goal. But that the overall movement is towards the goal. In this case I'm hard pressed to argue that's not the case here.

All opinions of course.

Click to expand...

This is partly my academic background coming through!

I read the original question almost as an exam question, a bit like “This was the outcome. Discuss the factors that may have influenced it”

And did just that

Ryanj91 said:

If this was the case you would disregard all Sunday league Dogso based on skill alone (no offence to any Sunday league players here)

Click to expand...

Well no, because a Sunday league attacker will be playing against Sunday League defenders and a GK.

It shouldn't be high up your list of considerations, but if a GK comes out to commit a foul but you still think the attacker would have had to find a way around the defender before scoring the goal, it's not unreasonable to use your experience of what you've seen so far in the game to consider if you think he would be able to do that easily or not.

In this situation, part of the reasoning for why it wasn't DOGSO is that the defender was keeping pace with the attacker until the GK came in - so if you "remove" the GK from the situation, DOGSO would require the attacker to be able to make enough space and have the skill to put the ball into an empty net from 40 yards with Konate in his way. Based on what I'd seen so far in that game, I think Konate wins that battle a fair share of the time - which can be a contributing factor in removing the "Obvious" from the decision.

Anubis said:

My esteemed colleague, Uefa cat 1, elite, has a no orange policy, Orange is, red
I dont always subscribe to it however, its done him no harm
No doubt he would have went red here.

Click to expand...

I've no doubt that's right - but in this case at least two PL referees decided it was yellow.