Blackburn v Ipswich DOGSO

[DJIC]

Tough one here, incensed the Blackburn manager Valerien Ismael sending him in to a referee rant.

You can see the covering defender but is he close enough? Distance, direction, control?

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx8mZ7Vsoxm_WxYzHa3FsBXsDBrpWXyMvy?si=O_-w2etnj199qhch

 

[bester]

Easy DOGSO, suspect referee has convinced himself that the likelihood of control is an issue.

 

[one]

Keeper is back paddling and the fact that the offending defender got to the ball at this point, even after slowing down, should have given the referee a clue.

 

[Pembroke]

No dogso. Distance to goal, having to delay to control a bouncing ball and a defender rapidly closing the distance to cover.

 

[ARF]

No dogso. Distance to goal, having to delay to control a bouncing ball and a defender rapidly closing the distance to cover.

This is the Championship, not Sunday League Division 6. Any attacker is easily going to control that ball and have the GSO. The defender is not "rapidly closing the distance" - he's quick enough to maintain his relative proximity, it's only because the attacker has been tripped and therefore unable to continue running that he closes the distance.

 

[Pembroke]

This is the Championship, not Sunday League Division 6. Any attacker is easily going to control that ball and have the GSO.

Maybe. And still have a lot to do.

 

[RustyRef]

Maybe. And still have a lot to do.

View attachment 8480

Law doesn't talk about having a lot to do though, does it?

He's moving towards goal, the covering defender would never be getting there, distance from goal is fine. The only possible question is would he get control of the ball, and given the keeper was backtracking, plus we can see that the red 5 who commits the foul ends up with the ball at his feet, the only real answer can be yes.

 

[Pembroke]

Law doesn't talk about having a lot to do though, does it?

He's moving towards goal, the covering defender would never be getting there, distance from goal is fine. The only possible question is would he get control of the ball, and given the keeper was backtracking, plus we can see that the red 5 who commits the foul ends up with the ball at his feet, the only real answer can be yes.

It was an answer to the refs post about the players touch, the one he has yet to take. I think a defender was going to get around him. Its still some distance to goal. Lot to do.

 

[RustyRef]

It was an answer to the refs post about the players touch, the one he has yet to take. I think a defender was going to get around him. Its still some distance to goal. Lot to do.

Using that logic though there would hardly be any DOGSO red cards, the forwards usually still have work to do. I'd say this is about as clear DOGSO as you are going to see, you can't count the defender who made the foul in the equation, and the other one is too far away to have any impact.

 

[socal lurker]

What was DOGSO created for? To stop cynical fouls designed to prevent a likely goal. Yup, that would be this. When it quacks like a duck, refs should not be searching for ways to decide it is actually an ostrich.