The following must be considered:
- distance between the offence and the goal
- general direction of the play
- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- location and number of defenders
a> 70 yards from goal
b> wide
c> possible, debatable, there is a chance.
d> the only one of the 4 criteria that is stonewall
nowhere near a red card. (for DOGSO)
It's not an indisputable red card but you can't say it's nowhere near, either. I think that apart from anything else, the number of qualified referees on this thread opting for red, shows that is definitely within the realms of possibility.
The law says you have to consider the distance from goal. It doesn't say that any particular distance is too far - it's just one of the things the referee has to take into account. 69 yards (according to the MotD graphic) with not a single outfield defender in the way and not one, but two forwards haring in on goal unopposed, is not too far for DOGSO to be at least a possibility, once all the circumstances are taken into account.
The general direction of the play is definitely towards the opponent's goal. Being 'wide' is not a disqualifying condition (and it's not even really that wide anyway). The player is just slightly to the right of the centre circle. Remember that since 2017 it is only required that the "overall movement is towards the offender’s goal" - the player and/or ball do not have to be heading in a straight line towards the centre of the goal for the direction criterion to be met. Overall direction of play here is clearly towards the opponent's goal.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the player was going to retain possession of the ball. He has knocked it past the defender, is going past him easily and at pace with no other defender even close. There no way he's not going to catch that ball (IMHO).
I agree with you on the location and number of defenders.
So for me, the only really debatable point is the distance, the other criteria are all fulfilled as far as I'm concerned. I can see why the referee here has gone for yellow and it's obviously not a horribly incorrect decision. The distance factor does call things into question but I still think it's a debatable one.
For instance it's no further away than an incident that occurred in a game between Fulham and my team, Middlesbrough a few years ago. In that incident there was only one attacker (Jordan Rhodes) involved in the play so it would potentially only have been one on one, not a two on one with the keeper - and the referee gave a red card. There were a few questions about whether it was too far away from goal to be a true DOGSO offence but again, no-one (as far as I recall) saying it was a massive error to go with a red.