The Ref Stop

Palace v Man City FAC

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Josh the referee said:
But the angle he'd have as well to get a shot away. Not sure the odds would entirely be in his favour.

Don't think its a factual DOGSO, certainly think its open to a large amount of interpretation.
Click to expand...
If tha goalkeeper doesn't handle it, the covering defender you mention is 19 yards from the goaline and a good few yards from Haaland. Even if Haaland goes ever so slightly wide, I'm not seeing anything but obviously goalscoring opportunity.

1000032979.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
The Ref Stop
Runner Ref said:
If he was through on goal, 1v1 with a GK who can use their hands, most people would still say DOGSO. This scenario is 1v1 with a defender who can't use their hands......
Click to expand...
There are a number of areas where the football laws can / could learn from Futsal. With regard to DOGSO, the number one consideration in Futsal is whether or not the goal is ‘guarded’ by the keeper. This makes total sense, as it’s the biggest driver of whether any goal scoring opportunity is Obvious. In football, if it’s the GK committing the offense, it’s WAY more likely to be an OGSO than if it’s a regular defender. And today was no exception to the rule (IMO)
 
Left footed player driving out to the right hand corner of the penalty area at pace, now needing to fetch a ball under control , defender more central just moving without the ball towards the goal line to block. Would the left footed player need to get the ball back onto his left foot or risk a shot with their weaker right foot. Just being devils advocate here, but there’s more going on here in my mind than it blatantly being an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
 
Hilly1618 said:
Left footed player driving out to the right hand corner of the penalty area at pace, now needing to fetch a ball under control , defender more central just moving without the ball towards the goal line to block. Would the left footed player need to get the ball back onto his left foot or risk a shot with their weaker right foot. Just being devils advocate here, but there’s more going on here in my mind than it blatantly being an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Click to expand...
I think you're maybe thinking too much into this if you're thinking about what his better foot is. You may take this as a slight consideration, but at this level, players are more than comfortable with their weaker foot. Haaland is into double figures with goals scored with his right foot, just in the PL since moving to England. So it's certainly not just for standing.
 
Hilly1618 said:
Left footed player driving out to the right hand corner of the penalty area at pace, now needing to fetch a ball under control , defender more central just moving without the ball towards the goal line to block. Would the left footed player need to get the ball back onto his left foot or risk a shot with their weaker right foot. Just being devils advocate here, but there’s more going on here in my mind than it blatantly being an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Click to expand...
I'd like you as my defence lawyer
 
Runner Ref said:
I think you're maybe thinking too much into this if you're thinking about what his better foot is. You may take this as a slight consideration, but at this level, players are more than comfortable with their weaker foot. Haaland is into double figures with goals scored with his right foot, just in the PL since moving to England. So it's certainly not just for standing.
Click to expand...
Simply, you can't decide DOGSO by which is the player's better foot.
 
The salient consideration for VAR was factual. Handball outside the PA. I can forgive the on field officials for getting that bit wrong. The other DOGSO critera were not in question. When VAR screws up, it is much harder to accept. I might have thought that obvious
Moreover, any contentious outcome is far harder to accept in games with VAR by anyone who disagrees with that outcome. Its a reason we're all disrespected more than we otherwise would be (without VAR). My last post on the thread because i cant be arsed woth it consuming much of my time these days

Sod referee considerations anyway, take Henderson's HB away and it's not an OGSO, it's a goal
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t suggesting that you decide DOGSO on a players stronger foot, however you may consider it as part of the bigger picture . Interestingly I am delivering a Referees Course tomorrow for Walking Football Referees and of course DOGSO will be covered so the the 3 ds and a C will be spoken of but my final message as it always is will be that the decision is based on very much on gut instinct, in that moment in time by what you see in front of you. Thankfully no VAR to consider in WF.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
For something like this, why is the ref not asked to sell the decision and review the monitor?
Click to expand...
I can understand that kind of question from a fan, but as a referee you know why that isn't an option. For VAR to recommend a review they must have first decided that the decision made by the on-pitch officials was clearly and obviously wrong. There is simply no option to use VAR to sell decisions.
 
RustyRef said:
I can understand that kind of question from a fan, but as a referee you know why that isn't an option. For VAR to recommend a review they must have first decided that the decision made by the on-pitch officials was clearly and obviously wrong. There is simply no option to use VAR to sell decisions.
Click to expand...
But this decision was clearly missed by the officials. It is therefore left solely to VAR. The referee for this potential red card should always have the final call. If he says no, that is selling it. If he's seen it and said it wasn't enough for dogso then why not give a free kick?
 
Runner Ref said:
If tha goalkeeper doesn't handle it, the covering defender you mention is 19 yards from the goaline and a good few yards from Haaland. Even if Haaland goes ever so slightly wide, I'm not seeing anything but obviously goalscoring opportunity.

View attachment 8149
Click to expand...
But if we take Henderson out of the picture, by the time Haaland is likely to regain control of the ball, there's a potential for 3 covering defenders.

The angle is definitely going wide and his next touch really would decide whether he'd have an opportunity or not even a sniff.
 
Russell Jones said:
There are a number of areas where the football laws can / could learn from Futsal. With regard to DOGSO, the number one consideration in Futsal is whether or not the goal is ‘guarded’ by the keeper. This makes total sense, as it’s the biggest driver of whether any goal scoring opportunity is Obvious. In football, if it’s the GK committing the offense, it’s WAY more likely to be an OGSO than if it’s a regular defender. And today was no exception to the rule (IMO)
Click to expand...
An excellent point
 
Hilly1618 said:
but my final message as it always is will be that the decision is based on very much on gut instinct, in that moment in time by what you see in front of you. Thankfully no VAR to consider in WF
Click to expand...
Sorry but this approach might work for fans and pundits but it’s absolutely not how we should referee
 
Josh the referee said:
But if we take Henderson out of the picture, by the time Haaland is likely to regain control of the ball, there's a potential for 3 covering defenders.

The angle is definitely going wide and his next touch really would decide whether he'd have an opportunity or not even a sniff.
Click to expand...
Going wide does not mean it cannot be DOGSO. The direction of play is a consideration, not a criteria.

If we take the goalkeeper out of the equation, you have one of the worlds best strikers with either an open goal, or with just a defender who cannot use their hands to beat on the goal line
 
Josh the referee said:
But if we take Henderson out of the picture, by the time Haaland is likely to regain control of the ball, there's a potential for 3 covering defenders.

The angle is definitely going wide and his next touch really would decide whether he'd have an opportunity or not even a sniff.
Click to expand...
which he was denied!
 
We may have some younger refs on here who don't know how DOGSO law changed.

Originally the wording was "moving toward the player's goal" (the player committing the offence)

Then it was "an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal" (commited by a player on an opponent)

Then it was "an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal" with the explanation (2017) that
Use of ‘overall movement’ clarifies that if, in the final stage, the attacker moves diagonally to go past a goalkeeper/defender an obvious goal-scoring opportunity can still exist.

You might not think it from some of the posts on here - maybe people have been misled by the 3Ds and a C stuff, particularly the "general direction" consideration - but the law is clear on this: it's a sending off for denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
But this decision was clearly missed by the officials. It is therefore left solely to VAR. The referee for this potential red card should always have the final call. If he says no, that is selling it. If he's seen it and said it wasn't enough for dogso then why not give a free kick?
Click to expand...
VAR can't just look at whether the referee missed the handball. They have to rule that the decision made (or not made) by the on-pitch officials was clearly and obviously wrong, only then can they recommend a review.
 
bloovee said:
Be fair. He was trying to cut the VAR some slack. If the VAR doesn't understand the law, why should a pundit?
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between not understanding/applying law correctly and getting it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top