A&H

MNC FUL (DOGSO question)

Mr Dean

RefChat Addict
6th minute of the game, Jesus is through on goal but is fouled by Fulham's Ream. Jesus throws himself to the ground. Ream is shown a straight red card. If Jesus stays on his feet, he can have a shot on goal, albeit a more difficult shot than if the foul hadn't occurred.

My question is since Jesus threw himself to the ground, did Ream obviously deny the goal scoring opportunity? Isn't it just interfering with a promising attack?

Edit: here's the video
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
@RustyRef yes, the foul is blatant but the foul didn't bring Jesus down. I guess I should've asked a question about a generic scenario to ask the question about DOGSO
 
Us referees have taught players if you want a foul, you have to go down. I havn't seen this incident but it sounds like Jesus (justifiably ) felt like if he doesn't go down, he won't get the obvious foul. It shouldn't matter if the player goes down or not.

Similar incident in Everton vs Brighton a couple of weeks ago when the attacker stayed on his foot and had a shot unbalanced which missed and the obvious foul was not given.

https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/everton-brighton.15027/post-168362
 
@RustyRef yes, the foul is blatant but the foul didn't bring Jesus down. I guess I should've asked a question about a generic scenario to ask the question about DOGSO

This wasn't a little nudge that he has milked though, the defender had pulled him back by the shoulder and that is likely to affect balance. Did he exaggerate the fall, yes I think he did, but that doesn't make it not a penalty and the only person to blame here is the defender.
 
This wasn't a little nudge that he has milked though, the defender had pulled him back by the shoulder and that is likely to affect balance. Did he exaggerate the fall, yes I think he did, but that doesn't make it not a penalty and the only person to blame here is the defender.
I agree it should be a penalty kick
 
My question is since Jesus threw himself to the ground, did Ream obviously deny the goal scoring opportunity? Isn't it just interfering with a promising attack?

Stop looking for excuses to make things more greyer than they need to be.

It's foul, holding/pulling/DOSGO-Pen-Red.

Simple as that. If you start going down the rabbit-hole of 'oooh well, he jumped about a bit" or "ooh it's not fair" or "oh dear, he could have stayed up" you're going to be making a lot of poor calls IMO. Stop over-analysing it.
 
I agree it should be a penalty kick
Then I don’t understand the question. how the player goes down or how the foul is committed doesn’t change whether it was OGSO or a promising attack. It’s one or the other before the foul is committed
 
Then I don’t understand the question. how the player goes down or how the foul is committed doesn’t change whether it was OGSO or a promising attack. It’s one or the other before the foul is committed
Ah, I see; I've worded the question poorly. My question is should it be a red card even though it wasn't the foul that denied the obvious goal-scoring opportunity (it was Jesus throwing himself to the ground that denied the goal-scoring opportunity)?
 
Ah, I see; I've worded the question poorly. My question is should it be a red card even though it wasn't the foul that denied the obvious goal-scoring opportunity (it was Jesus throwing himself to the ground that denied the goal-scoring opportunity)?
You're on tricky ground if you are going to be making those assumptions when determining DOGSO outcomes.
The lotg gives four criteria for judging DOGSO. Could/should the attacker have stayed on their feet is not one of them.
 
You're on tricky ground if you are going to be making those assumptions when determining DOGSO outcomes.
The lotg gives four criteria for judging DOGSO. Could/should the attacker have stayed on their feet is not one of them.
Thankfully, or my team would never see any opponents sent-off for DOGSO with our finishing. :D:D
 
Jesus throws himself to the ground
I’m really struggling to see how you think Jesus has thrown himself to the ground. If you watch his legs they carry on in a forward motion whilst he is yanked back by the shoulder, try throwing yourself to the ground in this manner I reckon you’ll find it quite difficult!
 
Ah, I see; I've worded the question poorly. My question is should it be a red card even though it wasn't the foul that denied the obvious goal-scoring opportunity (it was Jesus throwing himself to the ground that denied the goal-scoring opportunity)?
In addintion to @JamesL's post, let's say he didm't throw himself to the ground and had a "more difficult" (your quote) shot on goal and missed. What are you going to do then. Would a less difficult shot on goal, without the foul, make him score? Doesn't that mean a DOGSO? You take the events in sequence. The first one was the foul which should be punished. Without the foul we are not having this discussion. Punish the foul as the laws say (red card) what comes after can be punished separately is possible in law. Even though it was a dive, it is not simulation within the definition of laws so it can't be punished. The end.
 
I’m really struggling to see how you think Jesus has thrown himself to the ground. If you watch his legs they carry on in a forward motion whilst he is yanked back by the shoulder, try throwing yourself to the ground in this manner I reckon you’ll find it quite difficult!
The attacker flings his legs out forward, he isn't trying to keep running once he is fouled because he knows any chance after that is worse than the PK. Watching slow motion, the defender has already let go by the time the shoulders start to drop.
It's a dive, but it only emphasises the pulling-back in his shoulders which was enough for DOGSO anyway.
 
Was it a foul? Yes.

Did the scenario fulfill the DOGSO criteria? Yes.

Was the foul in the form of an attempt for the ball? No.

It's about as clear a DOGSO red card as you can get.

I also don't see how you can call that, "throwing himself to the ground." Yes, he makes sure the referee can see it, but he's clearly been pulled back, thrown off balance and his chances of continuing with the ball have already been effectively ended by the illegal actions of an opponent.

Even if you think the attacker has exaggerated the fall, to decide whether it's a DOGSO offence, you have to look at the situation that exists immediately before and just as the foul is being committed. You can't decide it based on what the attacker does after he's already been fouled.
 
If the defender keeps his hands off the attacker then there would be nothing to call here.
Even if you think it's simulation (I don't) the person at fault is the defender whose actions invite the player to go down and the referee to call DOGSO.
 
Back
Top