A&H

Watford vs Sunderland

Colour card

  • Total voters
    37
socal lurker said:
streamin.me

Video - bea3181d

Video was uploaded to Streamin.me on May 03, 2024.
streamin.me streamin.me

58’ athletic Bilbao- getafe DOGSO-H at midfield

Not much different . . . I think red is correct on both plays.
Click to expand...
For me this one would be red, whereas other one caution.

But it does prove the point that simply being 40m+ from goal doesn't automatically mean it can't be red. As has already been said, DOGSO has considerations, not criteria.
 
The Referee Store
The Ginger Ref said:
We could probably have this debate all night and not agree.

In my opinion, the LOTG don't allow for it and "football doesn't expect" a red card simply because of the distance to goal, there is still 56 yards of football to be played.

Watford fans may cry until the cows come home that it should be a red card, but they are not neutral.
Click to expand...
See @socal lurker recent post from Bilbao game.
 
Russell Jones said:
The only 'requirement' for DOGSO is that the referee believes that the offence has denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The four considerations are just that ... things for a referee to consider before deciding whether it's an OGSO. In my opinion, at this skill level, the next touch of the ball will be by the yellow striker, around 30m from goal and he will then have a 1 on 1 with the keeper ... I'm calling that DOGSO. At lower levels of football, a yellow would definitely preferable because the obviousness of the GSO would decrease
Click to expand...

The wording in the laws of the game say ‘the following MUST be considered’ therefore these considerations are used to make up my decision.

As for the actual handball offense he’s actually in the opponents half of the field. The last few seconds of the clip shows the ball is curling away from the centre of the goal.
The considerations for distance / direction and even control have some doubt.
 
Ste500 said:
The wording in the laws of the game say ‘the following MUST be considered’ therefore these considerations are used to make up my decision.

As for the actual handball offense he’s actually in the opponents half of the field. The last few seconds of the clip shows the ball is curling away from the centre of the goal.
The considerations for distance / direction and even control have some doubt.
Click to expand...
You've pretty much agreed with what @Russell Jones has said. They are considerations.
 
Ste500 said:
The 4 criteria must be considered and if either of those don’t meet the threshold then a DOGSO isn’t penalized. So effectively the considerations are requirements.
Click to expand...
If they are requirements, what is the required distance from goal? What is the required numbers of defenders?
 
The threshold being met for all four criteria in the opinion of the referee is the requirement.

We know there is no defined distance / number of defenders but we are trained to make these judgements.
 
Ste500 said:
The threshold being met for all four criteria in the opinion of the referee is the requirement.

We know there is no defined distance / number of defenders but we are trained to make these judgements.
Click to expand...
So if it isn't defined, how can it be a requirement? If you applied for a job, it would stipulate specific requirements such as qualifications, years of experience.

Law is clear that they are considerations, not requirements.
 
Ste500 said:
The threshold being met for all four criteria in the opinion of the referee is the requirement.

We know there is no defined distance / number of defenders but we are trained to make these judgements.
Click to expand...
My eyes were opened about a year ago ... saw a clip of an attacker one on one with the goalkeeper. Because he was trying to evade the GK, when he was fouled the direction of play was directly towards the halfway line. Had he not been fouled (and taking the GK, as the player committing the foul out of the picture) his next action would have been to turn and slot the ball into an empty net. Were we to see the four factors as 'criteria that must be met', then this would fail the direction test ... which is patently stupid as it was an extremely obvious goal scoring opportunity. So, in this case, whilst we 'consider' the direction of play, it does not negate the DOGSO red card. As the lawbook says, we MUST consider the 4 factors ... this doesn't mean we are slaves to them :)
 
Russell Jones said:
My eyes were opened about a year ago ... saw a clip of an attacker one on one with the goalkeeper. Because he was trying to evade the GK, when he was fouled the direction of play was directly towards the halfway line. Had he not been fouled (and taking the GK, as the player committing the foul out of the picture) his next action would have been to turn and slot the ball into an empty net. Were we to see the four factors as 'criteria that must be met', then this would fail the direction test ... which is patently stupid as it was an extremely obvious goal scoring opportunity. So, in this case, whilst we 'consider' the direction of play, it does not negate the DOGSO red card. As the lawbook says, we MUST consider the 4 factors ... this doesn't mean we are slaves to them :)
Click to expand...
IFAB also tweaked the language on this to specify overall direction toward the goal due to ARs too rigidly applying direction as an excuse not to send off players.

The Ds came around because IFAB was frustrated with Rs not recognizing OGSOs and not sending off players when they should—not as a way to create excuses not to send off players.
 
So I would agree I was incorrect to use the word requirement but I stand by my decision of a caution for this example along with the vast majority for this scenario.
Yes the 4 considerations won’t cover every scenario but I would argue when the ones they don’t cover it would be in a vast minority of cases.
 
Ste500 said:
The 4 criteria must be considered and if either of those don’t meet the threshold then a DOGSO isn’t penalized. So effectively the considerations are requirements.
Click to expand...
No. There are some albeit weird situations where the considerations are not met that are DOGSO. Imagine a player being fouled underneath the crossbar with the ball in the air (control of the ball is a massive doubt).
 
santa sangria said:
No. There are some albeit weird situations where the considerations are not met that are DOGSO. Imagine a player being fouled underneath the crossbar with the ball in the air (control of the ball is a massive doubt).
Click to expand...
For example the ball is rolling towards an attacker who has a defender behind him. The attacker is moving away from goal towards the ball, so that is one consideration down. He hasn't got the ball, and no guarantee he will get it, so that's another not met. The attacker then trips him as he moves towards the ball, there are no covering defenders, and without the foul the attacker would be clean through with just the keeper to beat (let's say all other defenders were up for an attacking corner to over-emphasise this). Only 50% of the considerations met, but I bet we are all going red here.
 
Runner Ref said:
Based on laws, I still go yellow. But the comments section prove exactly why I don't buy the 'football expects' notion.

Ps @Pwizardo I know you said stay out of them, but I couldn't resist :D
Click to expand...
Fully agree. Control or likelihood of gaining control are in doubt. And also distance is @ halfway line so probably too far from goal.

Can understand why the footballing world expects a red card but in law this is a yellow for stopping a promising attack.
 
Runner Ref said:
Based on laws, I still go yellow. But the comments section prove exactly why I don't buy the 'football expects' notion.

Ps @Pwizardo I know you said stay out of them, but I couldn't resist :D
Click to expand...
I get what you mean though - Sky have done quite a few Championship clips and it seems like more people disagree with decisions which are correct in law than not.
I do think Matt Donahue comes across well on them though - particularly when he has to talk about his own clips
 
JamesL said:
Fully agree. Control or likelihood of gaining control are in doubt. And also distance is @ halfway line so probably too far from goal.

Can understand why the footballing world expects a red card but in law this is a yellow for stopping a promising attack.
Click to expand...
I can see arguments either way. As an observer, I'd back a referee for either colour card .. so long as it was explained correctly in law! It's a really good clip for showing why we need to 'consider' the 'considerations' quite carefully! In most any other situation, the attacker who is (potentially) denied an OGSO is right where the foul is. In this case he is already well into the opposition half and will be further in before he (potentially) controls the ball. For me, that location is the relevant distance for judging the OGSO, rather than the location of the handball :)
 
Russell Jones said:
I can see arguments either way. As an observer, I'd back a referee for either colour card .. so long as it was explained correctly in law! It's a really good clip for showing why we need to 'consider' the 'considerations' quite carefully! In most any other situation, the attacker who is (potentially) denied an OGSO is right where the foul is. In this case he is already well into the opposition half and will be further in before he (potentially) controls the ball. For me, that location is the relevant distance for judging the OGSO, rather than the location of the handball :)
Click to expand...
I think the old law book would disagree with you on that one Russell:

"distance between the offence and the goal."

We can consider the position of the attacker in terms of making that judgment of likelihood to control the ball and your use of the word potentially puts this in doubt too imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top