Liverpool/Cardiff
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
It's just about not DOGSO due to a covering defender combined with direction of the ball. And it's just about not SFP because the contact is low and not excessively forceful.
Can definitely see why it feels red, due to being very "orange" on two counts. But the law doesn't allow for the discipline to be stacked for a single offence, so it has to stay yellow.
Can definitely see why it feels red, due to being very "orange" on two counts. But the law doesn't allow for the discipline to be stacked for a single offence, so it has to stay yellow.
Doesn't the fact that the GK is now out of play make the covering defender less meaningful? All he needs is one touch to having at worst a very good scoring opportunity and probably an obvious one.
My first thought was more reckless than SFP. And defender in there for DOGSO, I can see why people would say red though.
If you take the GK out of the picture completely, the defender is shoulder-to-shoulder with the attacker and in a position where he could make a sliding/lunging tackle if he needed to. That's enough for me that he still has work to do to get to the ball and hit it on target ahead of defenders
Disagree with the shoulder part. The defender peeled off to cover the GK. The attacker will have multiple unchallenged touches with only a defender who can't use their hands between him and the goal.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Not remotely SFP for me.
But I think DOGSO is justifiable. I also think yellow is justifiable.
The 4 considerations don't say "take the GK out of the equation", but they also don't say not to.
With no GK, the striker has possession with just a panicking defender to beat with a pass into an empty net.
Possession of the ball is in doubt, location and number of defenders (location) is in doubt... general direction of play is not in doubt (just because the ball is heading at 45 degrees doesn't mean the general direction of play isn't towards goal) but maybe... just maybe... the clincher is distance to goal.
If this is 10-15 yards closer to goal it's a much easier DOGSO red call. Even 5 yards closer to halfway and it's an easier yellow. With some doubt about three considerations, yellow is OK with me. But I think it's also easy enough to justify red.
But I think DOGSO is justifiable. I also think yellow is justifiable.
The 4 considerations don't say "take the GK out of the equation", but they also don't say not to.
With no GK, the striker has possession with just a panicking defender to beat with a pass into an empty net.
Possession of the ball is in doubt, location and number of defenders (location) is in doubt... general direction of play is not in doubt (just because the ball is heading at 45 degrees doesn't mean the general direction of play isn't towards goal) but maybe... just maybe... the clincher is distance to goal.
If this is 10-15 yards closer to goal it's a much easier DOGSO red call. Even 5 yards closer to halfway and it's an easier yellow. With some doubt about three considerations, yellow is OK with me. But I think it's also easy enough to justify red.
The defender peeled off because he saw the GK coming - he was up with the attacker and keeping pace until he made the decision to stop tracking, which it's fair to say is a decision he wouldn't have taken if the GK wasn't there.
Neither.
That's not how we're supposed to judge dogso. We take a snapshot at the moment of the foul and remove the fouling player. The ball stayed close to the player and he would have had time to take touches. The more I look at it I think it's 100% DOGSO and something the var missed.
I think you're conflating two different things - you can take a snapshot or you can mentally remove the fouling player, but doing both leads to the kind of logical inconsistencies your description contains. How can you possibly justify a red based on removing the GK from the situation but ignoring the fact the defender was comfortably stopping it being an obvious GSO until the GK coming in caused him to switch priorities?
For me I think RC for SFP. Don't think DOGSO is a consideration due to both players missing the ball, and I don't believe the Cardiff player gets to the ball before the Liverpool player if he's not taken out. However, the tackle is high and at full speed so could certainly be grounds for SFP.
On first view at full speed you can easily see how the referee has gone with yellow - miles away from goal and a covering defender (definitely not DOGSO) and looks like he’s tried to pull out of the tackle when realised he’s not getting the ball. Takes a few angles to see clearly the SFP of the studs halfway up the attackers leg.
If only we had some kind of video replay system to help the referees out in these kind of situations…
If only we had some kind of video replay system to help the referees out in these kind of situations…