DOGSO or… advantage?

Hi, there is a huge discussion in the polish football community regarding this situation. The call on the field was “advantage” and no card. VAR called the ref and after looking at this Ref has decided to give an yellow card. It’s clear that after the advantage you cannot give red card for DOGSO but the point is whethere the advantage was right call. Polish Ref Association said that red shirt no9 had “a clear opportunity to score a goal” so the advantage was good call.

Could you take a look at it?

That’s this the link:

Not a great advantage. But advantage played/accrued non the less.

Not sure why the ref was called to monitor. As advantage was played it isn't a possible red card so shouldn't have been requested to be reviewed.

Easy to judge now, but there's no OGSO from the advantage imo, so if you think there's a foul then safe refereeing is to give the DOGSO.

Corr, imagine if that chip had gone in. Whistle D'Or right there.

JamesL said:

Not sure why the ref was called to monitor. As advantage was played it isn't a possible red card so shouldn't have been requested to be reviewed.

Click to expand...

possibly red for the hand to the face? A stretch, but perhaps more plausible than to give a DOGSO red after advantage was played

If the VAR call was for playing advantage being a clear and obvious error then it would make sense. This is the moment the referee decided to play advantage.



Was it a clear goal scoring opportunity? Clearly not. Put it this way, if the attackers who is about to get the ball is held back by the defender who is chasing him from behind, and no advantage is played this time, would that opponent be sent off for DOGSO? No way.

One last thing, I don't understand why sometimes referee associations back a referee who has made a mistake just to save face.

I don’t think I’d be playing advantage in this situation, and I think it’d be a very hard sell at Sunday league if you tried to.

Yeah, I’d probably just delay the whistle to see what’s the outcome or sent him off…

one said:

One last thing, I don't understand why sometimes referee associations back a referee who has made a mistake just to save face.

Click to expand...

This is what the head of polish ref association posted (it’s google translated, but I hope you’ll get it)

“In this situation, we find that:

- the offense of the Arka (yellow team) defender had DOGSO qualification - stopping the opponent's hand. If the judge whistled them, the decision would be a direct free kick and a red card;

- Wisła (red team) No. 9 striker had (with a fair and correct assessment of the referee) a clear situation to score a goal (he was not attacked by anyone, an empty goal, a goalkeeper near a penalty point);

- the ref clearly signaled the advantage with his hand announcing that it was realized (the Wisla team had a clear - not worse than at the moment of committing the offense - opportunity to score a goal). Realizing the benefits is not the same as the end result - scoring a goal;

- in the event that the benefit was realized and signaled by the ref, he can not "return" to the original offense, unlike the use of the "delayed whistle" technique / delaying the whistle without signaling the benefit with the hand (applies to events in penalty areas).

FINAL DECISION

The judge's conduct and the decisions taken by him are correct, in accordance with the "Game Rules" and the adopted recommendations / procedures for the use of benefits. If a goal was scored, everyone would applaud the referee. If the referee stopped the game immediately and the ball would fall into the goal, we would talk about a very serious mistake.

Tomasz Mikulski”

socal lurker said:

possibly red for the hand to the face? A stretch, but perhaps more plausible than to give a DOGSO red after advantage was played

Click to expand...

VAR told journalist after the game they called for the red for DOGSO as it was clear and obvious that it wasn’t an advantage and no card was given.
they were aware that it’d be against the rules to sent him off, however that was the only fair thing to do.

Btw: at the moment of the “advantage”, the Red team was leading 2:1 and… they were down to 10 (double booked for two SPAs ).

Referee seemingly didn't view it as DOGSO in real time or he would've given a yellow card.

one said:

If the VAR call was for playing advantage being a clear and obvious error then it would make sense. This is the moment the referee decided to play advantage.

.

Click to expand...

do the protocols permit review of application of advantage? I didn’t think they did.

Don't think that is a great advantage, yes the other attacker goes on to hit the bar but he wouldn't have had the free kick been given. No way he could go for DOGSO after playing advantage, so really have no idea why VAR were getting involved. This is a big problem at senior levels in that they play advantage just based on possession, whereas a free kick and red card to opponents would be far more of an advantage in that situation.

A challenging situation. You could certainly make the case that the unobstructed shot on goal was be a better opportunity to score than the alternative free kick would have been (especially given the advanced position of the GK). In that circumstance, the only reason NOT to play the advantage would be because of the beneficial impact of the red card to the attacking team. However I've certainly not received any guidance / training as to how heavily we should factor this impact into our on field thinking. One of those situations where a referee can easily be "damned if they do and damned if they don't"

socal lurker said:

do the protocols permit review of application of advantage? I didn’t think they did.

Click to expand...

Unless you think playing advantage and signaling it is not categorised as making a decision I don't see why you think that.

Is playing advantage considers an error in relation to the red card? That’s the question. I’m not convinced that is intended by the language, though I can see how it could be interpreted that way.

I haven't read the other comments.. but my though on this is if the ref has seen an advantage and the attacking team then get a shot off and hit the cross bar then you can say that advantage did exist and in law it's fine.

We shouldn't be trying to send players off but given the defender inbetween the 2nd attacking player and the goal.. I'd have whistled and sent off for DOGSO.

Damned if you do, dammed if you don't.

If you're quick on the whistle. I guarantee that lob goes in every day of the week.

No way the player hears the whistle and decides not to dink it.

Then when it tucks in under the cross bar. Not only do you have to chop one team down to 10 men, but you need to knock a goal off the other team.

Then this forum will be full of posters saying, he should have waited an extra 5 seconds and that you yourself would have waited.