The Ref Stop

Liv vs Ful

The Ref Stop
I don't think this is a DOGSO.

Direction of play and control are in doubt for me. The direction of the ball is played across the field of play and is a heavy touch which adds the doubt to these considerations.

99.9% of us go DOGSO on field, though so it's not an horrendous decision.

The wait and see doesn't help but once play brought back to the foul it has to be sanctioned according to the referees opinion. Probably not clearly and obviously wrong enough for VAR but would expect an appeal and the red card rescinding.
 
Agree, not a DOGSO for me. The direction of the touch and the distance it went away from him meant there was pretty much zero chance of him getting the ball let alone having an OGSO. Can understand why Tony Harrington thought it was DOGSO at the time, but equally I think it is so obviously wrong VAR could have come in.

The other issue here is he clearly played advantage. OK he might not have signalled it, but Jiminez had a one on one and tried to be clever by dinking it. Had it gone in then he would certainly have given a goal, the chance that Jiminez had was better than the one presented by the free kick, so I'm struggling to see how it can be said that advantage wasn't played.
 
RustyRef said:
Agree, not a DOGSO for me. The direction of the touch and the distance it went away from him meant there was pretty much zero chance of him getting the ball let alone having an OGSO. Can understand why Tony Harrington thought it was DOGSO at the time, but equally I think it is so obviously wrong VAR could have come in.

The other issue here is he clearly played advantage. OK he might not have signalled it, but Jiminez had a one on one and tried to be clever by dinking it. Had it gone in then he would certainly have given a goal, the chance that Jiminez had was better than the one presented by the free kick, so I'm struggling to see how it can be said that advantage wasn't played.
Click to expand...
There was no benefit to the non-offending team so advantage not accrued and so bringing it back was an option.

I imagine that the AR who was flagging was saying stop the game and so Tony Harrington got caught in between 2 decisions instead of committing to stop play or committing to playing advantage.

Be surprised if this one doesn't make it on to Howard Webbs show.
 
JamesL said:
There was no benefit to the non-offending team so advantage not accrued and so bringing it back was an option.

I imagine that the AR who was flagging was saying stop the game and so Tony Harrington got caught in between 2 decisions instead of committing to stop play or committing to playing advantage.

Be surprised if this one doesn't make it on to Howard Webbs show.
Click to expand...
Think there is an argument to say there was a benefit though, you have a premier league striker through one on one with the keeper, the fact he tries to be clever and makes a mess of it shouldn't really give them a second chance. You either give the free kick straight away or accept you are taking a big risk in playing advantage, don't think you can give the attacking team two bites of the cherry.

Fully agree thought that it should be on the next Mic'd Up, and also fully expect this will be overturned on appeal.
 
RustyRef said:
Think there is an argument to say there was a benefit though, you have a premier league striker through one on one with the keeper, the fact he tries to be clever and makes a mess of it shouldn't really give them a second chance. You either give the free kick straight away or accept you are taking a big risk in playing advantage, don't think you can give the attacking team two bites of the cherry.

Fully agree thought that it should be on the next Mic'd Up, and also fully expect this will be overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...
Agree. It’s borderline DOGSO for initial challenge, but understand how it was given.

The issue is the ‘advantage’. To non-referees (and some referees) it looks like TH has basically given them 2 bites of the cherry.

But I’d say this is good learning for those of us lower down the ladder. In DOGSO circumstances, 99.9% of the time, blow up. If you do as TH did on a Saturday, you’re likely in for a load of grief
 
I think football expects DOGSO here. They are considerations. General (!) direction of play is towards goal. If there is some doubt about control I think it’s insignificant compared to the overall situation.

However, there is a strong case that this was a “two bites” situation. I wonder just how close to a goal would it have to have been for TH to signal. By not signalling advantage early when the ball was obviously breaking for the striker, he dropped a clanger I think.

But I don’t think it’s a VARable mistake. DOGSO plus very difficult to time advantage situation. I can’t argue with the RC outcome.

The major error was Robertson’s, not the referee’s!
 
I don't think the DOGSO decision is obviously wrong and as @santa sangria says, I think most of football expects this to be DOGSO at premier league level.

The argument against the red card on talksh*te was that he was entitled to go back and award the free kick but because Jiminez had a shot, the OGSO wasn't denied and it can't be a red card.
This is totally flawed logic, because if he's going back and giving the free kick he is saying that the advantage hasn't accrued, the OGSO has been denied and he must still punish as he was going to for the original foul, you can't downgrade it.

I do think the advantage went on a little too long for me though. I don't think there is an expectation that a player should be allowed a clear shot at goal and then play be brought back for the foul afterwards.
 
DOGSO is one of those terms that doesn't make sense. After a challenge, possibilities exist that we're asked to foresee in a split second. We can only predict that there will be a goal scoring opportunity. Could this player have scored had Robertson not brought him down? I think the answer is yes. But he could also have ballooned it into the crowd, fell on his face or just lost interest in football altogether and sat down and thought about life...

Obvious is subjective and needs dropped I think.

I don't think this is anything but a red card in the terms of the LOTG.
 
RonnieM said:
DOGSO is one of those terms that doesn't make sense. After a challenge, possibilities exist that we're asked to foresee in a split second. We can only predict that there will be a goal scoring opportunity. Could this player have scored had Robertson not brought him down? I think the answer is yes. But he could also have ballooned it into the crowd, fell on his face or just lost interest in football altogether and sat down and thought about life...

Obvious is subjective and needs dropped I think.

I don't think this is anything but a red card in the terms of the LOTG.
Click to expand...
If you get rid of obvious, you are left with ‘Denial of a goalscoring opportunity’. That could literally mean anytime someone has possession of the ball
 
RonnieM said:
Damn you're quick... changed it to 'probable' soon after posting.
Click to expand...
What would the definition be for a probable goal scoring opportunity?

If it is ‘they probably would have scored’; you’re back around to your original point- We can only predict that there will be a goal scoring opportunity. Could this player have scored had Robertson not brought him down? I think the answer is yes. But he could also have ballooned it into the crowd, fell on his face or just lost interest in football altogether and sat down and thought about life...
 
Runner Ref said:
What would the definition be for a probable goal scoring opportunity?
Click to expand...
Speaks for itself really. In all probability had the illegal challenge not happened the player would have more likely than not have scored a goal. 'Obvious' states that evidently, he will score if he isn't challenged. That removes debates like is it obvious or not?
 
RonnieM said:
Speaks for itself really. In all probability had the illegal challenge not happened the player would have more likely than not have scored a goal. 'Obvious' states that evidently, he will score if he isn't challenged. That removes debates like is it obvious or not?
Click to expand...
Not really. That changes very little, if anything.

As you say, they could just lose all interest in football at that split moment. Then it’s no longer probable that they will score.
 
RefereeX said:
I do think the advantage went on a little too long for me though. I don't think there is an expectation that a player should be allowed a clear shot at goal and then play be brought back for the foul afterwards.
Click to expand...
That's the place that I'm at, the chance that Jiminez had is probably as good as the one that Wilson would have had. Should they get another chance because Jiminez tried to be clever and fluffed it, not for me. If you are going to be brave enough to play advantage on a DOGSO you can only be doing so because there is an imminent chance to score, as that is what law says, so you have to stick by your decision and can't bring it back for the free kick because the attacker makes a horlicks of it. That's why the advice has always been just give the foul unless they are literally about to tap it into an open goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top