A&H

Old Firm Send Off

If you watch it real time he doesn’t have a clear route to goal therefore not obvious by LOTG hence I wouldn’t give a red.

Disagree on this.

Out of the 4 criteria for DOGSO, it's the only one that requires any real thought as the other 3 are nailed on.

Yes he is in a wide position, but his direction of travel will be to enter the PA at an angle where he has an obvious chance to score a goal. It's one of those situations where had the offence occurred 15 yards closer to the Celtic goal with the attacker that wide, it would then have become a SPA.
 
The Referee Store
If you watch it real time he doesn’t have a clear route to goal therefore not obvious by LOTG hence I wouldn’t give a red.

He has an absolutely clear route to goal. This is taken from the end of the holding, the ball is moving in the direction of the keeper and but for the foul so would Morales have been, and there is no doubt he would have got to the ball.

1609713716282.png
 
If you watch it real time he doesn’t have a clear route to goal therefore not obvious by LOTG hence I wouldn’t give a red.
When you say "doesn’t have a clear route to goal" it means there is something/someone impeding his route to goal. Are you counting the goal keeper? what is it that makes this a not clear route?
 
If you watch it real time he doesn’t have a clear route to goal therefore not obvious by LOTG hence I wouldn’t give a red.
On what basis are you thinking that he doesn't have a clear route to goal? Although Morelos is out wide, he's goal side of the defender and running on a diagonal towards the goal with no covering defender (or at least not one that is close enough to get across).
 
Whilst I'm happy with DOGSO, I actually think it's a brave call by the referee and he should be commended for showing the red card. All too often, it's too easy to think a caution is the 'safe bet' and a fairly high % of us would fall into that trap in such circumstances
 
Whilst I'm happy with DOGSO, I actually think it's a brave call by the referee and he should be commended for showing the red card. All too often, it's too easy to think a caution is the 'safe bet' and a fairly high % of us would fall into that trap in such circumstances
Always a red card in the old firm. Not the first one shown by Madden. Can’t argue with your statement.
 
Whilst I'm happy with DOGSO, I actually think it's a brave call by the referee and he should be commended for showing the red card. All too often, it's too easy to think a caution is the 'safe bet' and a fairly high % of us would fall into that trap in such circumstances
Yes, it's a good decision because he has mentally been able to capture the situstion and make the correct call.
I think at our levels we will miss DOGSO sometimes, particularly here, because by the time we have blown and taken in the picture we believe the rangers defender was in the picture.
I bet if you take a freeze frame not more than 1 or 2 seconds after this foul it will show SPA instead.
 
Yes, it's a good decision because he has mentally been able to capture the situstion and make the correct call.
I think at our levels we will miss DOGSO sometimes, particularly here, because by the time we have blown and taken in the picture we believe the rangers defender was in the picture.
I bet if you take a freeze frame not more than 1 or 2 seconds after this foul it will show SPA instead.

Excellent point. I think it is important to be pondering DOGSO before the foul in many cases. Of course, not all fouls are predictable, but often we see a potential foul coming before it happens. Especially on break-aways, that is often the more effective time to be evaluating the OGSO. (I sometimes find myself thinking "don't foul" as a I see a potential DOGSO foul in the offing. Luckily for me, in the games I do DOGSO is quite rare.)
 
Whilst I'm happy with DOGSO, I actually think it's a brave call by the referee and he should be commended for showing the red card. All too often, it's too easy to think a caution is the 'safe bet' and a fairly high % of us would fall into that trap in such circumstances
As we've seen/heard with the ref mic from Michael Oliver's FA Cup final, the AR could easily be saying DOGSO DOGSO to help the referee, or the ref could be saying it to himself.

I listened to the highlights on the SPFL's youtube but only heard the covering defender (Ajer) say "it's a yellow card" and Bobby Madden reply "you've a bit to go, a bit to to go to catch him".

Though the biggest incorrect decision by the referee in this match was after just 2 minutes when Morelos went in late on the ankle of an opponent, right in front of the 4O but wasn't booked. Given that player's temperament, he might not have even been on the pitch to win the foul for the red card!
 
Just a bit of a side issue here.

Lennon think the defender Ajer will get back to cover (he wouldnt)

As a referee and probably more at PL level as they will know the players more but would they take into consideration if a covering defender is very quick or very slow say or just a case of the position on the pitch
 
Just a bit of a side issue here.

Lennon think the defender Ajer will get back to cover (he wouldnt)

As a referee and probably more at PL level as they will know the players more but would they take into consideration if a covering defender is very quick or very slow say or just a case of the position on the pitch
This might just be an artifact of the way I think, but I always go through a kind of 2-step process when making decisions like this.

Step 1: What's my initial instinctive decision? In this case, I immediately thought DOGSO: red card.
Step 2: Are there any other factors I need to consider? Where the initial decision is less than red these can be things that make the punishment harsher, but obviously when step 1 gives a red card, step 2 will only be looking for mitigation. That's where your question comes in - a covering defender would be enough for a downgrade to yellow, but I'd have to be certain about it. Any doubt, including me not being sure if the player is fast enough to cover and I'd stick to the initial decision.
 
Yes, it's a good decision because he has mentally been able to capture the situstion and make the correct call.
I think at our levels we will miss DOGSO sometimes, particularly here, because by the time we have blown and taken in the picture we believe the rangers defender was in the picture.
I bet if you take a freeze frame not more than 1 or 2 seconds after this foul it will show SPA instead.

I'm sure I've done this in the past, but I think there are times where referees will err on the side of caution and go yellow if there's any small doubt about a DOGSO. I remember a pre-season tournament I did back in August. Team White's forward picked the pocket of Team Blue's defender, and Blue trips white about 35 yards out. Not anticipating a high press like that (my key mistake here), I was on a straight line another 20 yards up the field anticipating a build out. I was working with a young AR who wasn't able to provide any DOGSO help, so I went with a SPA caution. In hindsight, I probably should have carded for DOGSO. Like @socal lurker said, I should have been thinking about the DOGSO before the tackle happened and also been on much more of an angle to get a better view of the other defender's chance of defending the play. It was a very good lesson for me.
 
Don't entirely agree with that statement and diagram. Attackers don't have to take the most direct route to goal. The further away you are in some cases is a better opportunity. If no other defenders can make up ground then bigger distance helps attackers to improve their angle before taking a shot. Being close means the keeper (if still in play) will get involved before attacker has a chance to improve angle. You can't look at distance and/or angle in isolation without looking at position of defenders.
 
I think it's a red based on a balance of the 4 considerations - and in the back of my mind, wider context, this law was designed to prevent the "professional foul", this is a perfect example, and the defender is definitely trying to prevent a goal here. I'm overwhelmingly in the RC camp.

But, based on the 4 considerations - and they are just considerations - they don't all have to be proven 100% - they are plenty of scenarios where one or more is not fulfilled but the offence is still DOGSO-R - based on the considerations - I am quite happy if the referee gives a yellow card.

Why? Distance from goal is in doubt. General direction of play is in doubt. Covering defender is in doubt. I think it's easy to say there's enough doubt here to go yellow. And it wouldn't be "wrong".


The laws here give referees a bit too much scope I think to squirm out of this red. "Considerations" - they are to be considered. They don't have to be 100% proven. You can hide behind them if you want. And they are vital to the decision making process. I would be quite happy if the DOGSO law was more all encompassing - e.g. if it included a proviso, like penalty decisions, about challenging for the ball. This is inconsistent in the laws, isn't it? If there was a DOGSO clause about considering if it was a challenge for the ball, it would make this a much easier red card decision.
 
The laws here give referees a bit too much scope I think to squirm out of this red. "Considerations" - they are to be considered. They don't have to be 100% proven. You can hide behind them if you want. And they are vital to the decision making process. I would be quite happy if the DOGSO law was more all encompassing - e.g. if it included a proviso, like penalty decisions, about challenging for the ball. This is inconsistent in the laws, isn't it? If there was a DOGSO clause about considering if it was a challenge for the ball, it would make this a much easier red card decision

Knowing how IFAB works, I am VERY happy with what is there now. They tried to be more specific for handball and look where we are now.

Plus, in general I don't mind the referee being give some discresssion on laws where it does not cover every possible situation. The human factor adds to the spectacle of the game.
 
Don't entirely agree with that statement and diagram. Attackers don't have to take the most direct route to goal. The further away you are in some cases is a better opportunity. If no other defenders can make up ground then bigger distance helps attackers to improve their angle before taking a shot. Being close means the keeper (if still in play) will get involved before attacker has a chance to improve angle. You can't look at distance and/or angle in isolation without looking at position of defenders.
I get your point, this was given to me by a SG2 ref and of course, you need to include the defender in this however in this case that defender could not have got across even if the St took the most direct route to goal and the further he went from goal, the less clear the goal scoring opportunity was. I think the diagram gives us a good idea where DOGSO should be given and you must incorporate position of second last man in this aswell
 
Back
Top