Chelsea v Norwich
- Thread starter Ryanj91
- Start date
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Agree, its a shot on target from 9 yards, goalkeeper esq saved from 6 yards out
If thats not classed as a clear opportunity to score s goal then am out
That aside, the Norwich guy who got sent off, thats just ridiculous fom the plsyer, teams getting a doing, oh, I know, I will make it worse by taking my team down to ten.
But yes, red card for me.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Once a shot is taken, its DOG, not DOGSO. The question is whether, ITOOTR, the ball was going in the goal without the handling. If @Tealeaf is correct that it was going wide without the handling, then caution is correct.
I know he was very knowledgeable and successful in his day, but he comes out with some quite, well, interesting opinions from time to time. I'm not always sure if he is really imparting knowledge or pot stirring to gain attention.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
its on target. its a red card, not even a debate required.
in no way is it going wide, the other poster is mistaken
The referee and VAR thought differently, and in fairness they have access to much better technology than you do.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
as we know, they do not make errors......
its a red card, with var, without var
the technology is only as good as the person viewing it.
still to see an example of, here is where the ball would have gone but for the handball.
its 7 yards out, and, headed between the sticks and under the bar.
as Hackett says, 6-0 and a player down, a red would mean going down to 9, so lets give a token yellow.
Hackett says whatever he thinks will keep him relevant, if he said the referee got it right every time he wouldn't get paid to give his views.
I've watched it again and I can't work out if it was on target or not. On that basis I'm comfortable with yellow, as if I can't tell whether it was going in or not from multiple replays it surely cannot be an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
The LotG doesn't specify about a shot being on target:
"A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
I think it is easy to red card here. Is it denial of a goal, maybe; is it denial of a goal scoring opportunity, probably; it's not mentioned but the idea of if the ball is going into or close to the goal is used elsewhere in the LotG.
The only handball-related clause:
I think it's an easy red.
"A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)"
I think it is easy to red card here. Is it denial of a goal, maybe; is it denial of a goal scoring opportunity, probably; it's not mentioned but the idea of if the ball is going into or close to the goal is used elsewhere in the LotG.
The only handball-related clause:
- Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.
I think it's an easy red.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
If it's not on target, there's no obvious goal scoring opportunity--just a goal kick turned into a PK. DOGSO-H means the handling prevented someone from having an opportunity.
On my field, if it is a cynical play, I will resolve all doubt in favor of the shot being on target and go with red. If it's one of those close calls that just falls on the line of being an offense, I will resolve doubt in favor of it not being on target and go with the caution. But if it is clearly on target it is red, and if it is clearly off target it is not.
(I don't have access to the video on this, so I have no opinion as to where this particular one falls. Nor does my opinion matter, as I wasn't the ref.)
On my field, if it is a cynical play, I will resolve all doubt in favor of the shot being on target and go with red. If it's one of those close calls that just falls on the line of being an offense, I will resolve doubt in favor of it not being on target and go with the caution. But if it is clearly on target it is red, and if it is clearly off target it is not.
(I don't have access to the video on this, so I have no opinion as to where this particular one falls. Nor does my opinion matter, as I wasn't the ref.)
At 13:00. It looks like the ball is heading towards goal before the touch. I am looking at the offensive player's position and kick to place the ball on goal.
The defenders deflection of the ball is away from goal.
To me, shot was on goal. Yellow is being nice.
That's an expected yellow with the gk in goal.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I agree. Seems to me highly unlikely that is a goal as it looks like a slow ball the GK would have time to save if it was not curling away from the frame. (But I wouldn't fault a referee who had a different opinion on the field.)
Anubis
RefChat Addict
its a decent hit, its on target, ( between the posts and under the bar)
its also not going near gk
the opportunity to score was denied by the defender.
which means red
its entirely possible dogso wherever you are is taught differently.
this incident is really no more complex than above.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
As I said, I wouldn't fault a referee for having a different opinion. But I think you are conceptually incorrect in using "opportunity" in the context of a ball in flight towards the goal. No attacker has an opportunity to do anything the ball is going in, curling away to the post, or being saved by the GK. The only conceptually proper analysis here is DOG. And in my view, that is not an obvious goal in the absence of the handling.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
lets agree to disagree, mainly because I would be struggling to express how much nonsense imo you are typing without causing offence.
in the interests of a peaceful forum i am not passing further comment on this incident
next
Last edited:
