Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Based on this angle it looks like a deliberate follow through by the defender to bring down the attacker so I would say free kick and DOGSO.
If the referee deems the challenge to be careless, or reckless then this is a DOGSO situation. All 4 criteria met.
From the main clip it's really difficult to tell but the zoomed in slo mo does show a secondary action of the right boot which if the referee detects this negates what appears to be a fair challenge, initially.
My opinion is it's a foul and a DOGSO - DFK + red card
@pyotr99 is this you in the clip? Firstly thanks for sharing. Can take a lot of courage to put yourself out here like this.
Secondly what was your thought process?
From the main clip it's really difficult to tell but the zoomed in slo mo does show a secondary action of the right boot which if the referee detects this negates what appears to be a fair challenge, initially.
My opinion is it's a foul and a DOGSO - DFK + red card
@pyotr99 is this you in the clip? Firstly thanks for sharing. Can take a lot of courage to put yourself out here like this.
Secondly what was your thought process?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
The decision as to whether or not to penalise the challenge is subjective. Initially the ball is won cleanly so we are then deciding if the secondary contact is worthy of a free kick .. I can see arguments both ways.
However, if the foul is given, I’m comfortable with a YC sanction as I believe the initial fair first contact by the defender has moved the ball far enough away from the attacker to raise questions about the likelihood of the attacker regaining control / possession
However, if the foul is given, I’m comfortable with a YC sanction as I believe the initial fair first contact by the defender has moved the ball far enough away from the attacker to raise questions about the likelihood of the attacker regaining control / possession
one
RefChat Addict
DfK and red card. All criteria are satisfied for me.
The contact after kicking the ball seems deliberate but even if not it is careless for me and denies the opponent a fair chance of getting to the ball which I think he would have had he not been fouled.
Second clip the the better one to judge the foul. First clip is better (full speed) to judge dogso criteria.
The contact after kicking the ball seems deliberate but even if not it is careless for me and denies the opponent a fair chance of getting to the ball which I think he would have had he not been fouled.
Second clip the the better one to judge the foul. First clip is better (full speed) to judge dogso criteria.
Last edited:
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Once you give a foul, I'd be going DOGSO.... I think
I'm just not sure I'd be going foul. I'd say its supportable, but I didn't watch the clip and instantly think foul. I'm not seeing the secondary movement some are suggesting. I think defender wins ball and he just can't quite stop his momentum. It's a rather unorthodox challenge to have gone in with his left foot
I'm just not sure I'd be going foul. I'd say its supportable, but I didn't watch the clip and instantly think foul. I'm not seeing the secondary movement some are suggesting. I think defender wins ball and he just can't quite stop his momentum. It's a rather unorthodox challenge to have gone in with his left foot
Last edited:
I've watched it 3 times now and can't agree.
The pace the attacker is travelling at still makes it likely that he'll at least get a dink past any onrushing cover/goalkeeper for me.
As others have said, practically impossible to not go red after you've blown the whistle here.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Interesting conceptual question on the OGSO. Co we judge the challenge in totality or in stages. If in stages, we have the play away, so no OGSO remains when the foul occurs. If in totality, there was an OGSO when the challenge bevpgan, so we have red. I think it is intended to be the latter.
I don't disagree about the intent of the law, but for me it's not one act of challenging for the ball. If it was, then I don't think a foul would have occured, but it's the secondary act to block the attacker which is the foul and for me that's not part of the initial challenge.
That's pretty much my take on it, he's tackled with the "wrong" foot, possibly because at that standard he can't use the other one (I speak from experience), won the ball and then his body is just in the way of the attacker. I'm not seeing any kind of secondary motion, certainly not an intentional one, and rather see it as a coming together.
Based on that I don't think I'd be giving it as a foul, but if I had I'd be struggling to avoid pulling red out as it seems to tick all of the DOGSO boxes.
I can see your and Russell's point but I think we as a bunch on here tend to over complicate stuff at times.
For me, it's a careless challenge and nothing more. You might even wave it away if it happened in the centre circle but it didn't. The defender, in his action of making contact with the ball (like you say, using the wrong foot) has upended the attacking player who was bearing down on goal and were it not for the contact after the fact, would in all likelihood still have had a goal scoring opportunity.
Hi, yes, this is me in the clip.
This was from my debut in the 6th League in my country, which unfortunately didn’t go as planned and won't expect another one any time soon.
The situation happened in the 52nd minute. Initially, I watched situation closely expecting a foul since it was a counterattack starting from the halfway line. After the whistle, I was quite sure it that I was not going for a red card. Somehow, I had a second player locked in my mind—someone I saw peripherally—and I also saw the defender (in white) make contact with the ball, who protested afterwards.
In this match, both experienced assistant referees had beeper flags. I was initially against using them, but they insisted, and I eventually agreed.
During the game, there were several accidental beeps, which reduced my attention to the ARs. In this particular situation, AR2 tried to save me with a beep, but I was still talking to players. By the time I made eye contact with the AR for a longer moment, I didn’t notice any signal indicating the need for further consultation.
At our seminars, we often assess different situations within our FA. I was heavily influenced by one DOGSO case, where the committee emphasized that the attacker must be in control of the ball. In this situation, I felt that was not the case, as the ball changed direction and moved away from the attacker due to the defender making contact. There was a clear interval between the defender’s contact with the ball and the attacker, and I somehow split the offence into two phases—mainly punishing the second phase—which left me a bit confused afterward, when I realised that the contact made could have negated the offence.
During the cooling break, I had a quick chat with the attacking team's captain. He considered the situation borderline/difficult and eventually accepted my explanation and therefore a decision.
I was surprised after the match when both ARs told me it should have been DOGSO, especially after reviewing the footage. What I am sure of, that I am never going to use the beepers again
, can't remember match that went well with them.
Last edited:
RefRyanAus
Active Member
Great to get your perspective as the ref in the middle.
I have had similar unsettling experiences with comms. If you are not used to it or your confidence in it is shaken for whatever reason it does not make things easier. I think my introduction to comms was for a grand final and I can confidently say it did not improve my performance #toomanyvoices!
Given that there was much thoughtful discussion on this forum about whether this was a foul and if it was a foul, whether it was DOGSO, it seems that nothing was really lost in the decision that was the made. The least that can be said is that both decisions could probably have gone either way.
Your thought process, insight and reflection are obviously very interesting and helpful, so thank you for providing this postscript to the forum.
I have had similar unsettling experiences with comms. If you are not used to it or your confidence in it is shaken for whatever reason it does not make things easier. I think my introduction to comms was for a grand final and I can confidently say it did not improve my performance #toomanyvoices!
Given that there was much thoughtful discussion on this forum about whether this was a foul and if it was a foul, whether it was DOGSO, it seems that nothing was really lost in the decision that was the made. The least that can be said is that both decisions could probably have gone either way.
Your thought process, insight and reflection are obviously very interesting and helpful, so thank you for providing this postscript to the forum.
First thanks for sharing the clip @pyotr99 I really hope you get another chance at that level.
The duck test regarding the DOGSO. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Defender doesn't get enough on the ball so gets his hips in the attacker way (who is going twice the speed of the defender who has been caught flat), attacker is 99% gaining control of that ball and will be 1-on-1 with the GK.
The duck test regarding the DOGSO. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Defender doesn't get enough on the ball so gets his hips in the attacker way (who is going twice the speed of the defender who has been caught flat), attacker is 99% gaining control of that ball and will be 1-on-1 with the GK.