ladbroke8745
Censorship
Going to say as little as possible here but surely that was a red for DOGSO?
Man City v Brentford
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
There was a slight get out with the touch taking the ball to the right and with no VAR until the semi final, the Referee rightly or wrongly took the conservative approach. I can understand why he did what he did with showing a yellow, along with some frustration from Brentford, exasperated by being 1-0 down (at the time)! If VAR was in operation would it be considered a clear & obvious error, perhaps, depending upon how high or low the bar is set! For me, I think the colour of the card would not be changed.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
It was 0-0 at the time.
Whole different game if he was sent off. Would Foden have come on for Bobb at that point or would a defender have come on?
Makes a huge difference.
I also disagree with the direction reasoning personally, and not because of whom I support. A professional attacker has just knocked it past the last defender with the next touch on, or just in, the area, very much centrally. The wording in law is a goalscoring opportunity and this very much was.
You might get away with yellow, if thats your opinion, on a Sunday morning, but not professionally.
As it does involve Brentford, I wont say any more on this.
Nothing else happened in the game for Sam to manage and I feel I made my opinion on it fair.
Edit..
I will add, you seem to agree with the DOGSO reasonings in this game (Blackburn v Ipswich) where he does have more work to do.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Alas, clip not available on this side of the pond . . .
Just noting that there was a language change in the law a couple of years back to be clarify that it is the "general direction of play" that matters. The change was made precisely to get people out of the mindset of "well, he was going a bit sideways to get around a defender, so he wasn't going directly at the goal so not DOGSO." As described, I don't see the get out that you do--as described seems squarely the kind of reasoning that IFAB was trying to squelch with the language change.
Fair enough with the score at 0-0 at the time (I watched the clip on here when it was 1-0, but no excuse on my part for my inaccuracy).
I saw presumably what Sam saw, because if he didn’t, then he would have seen a DOGSO. The wording is ‘obvious’ goal scoring opportunity with part of the criteria being & as a colleague has correctly said in ’ general direction of the play. However, if the Law was changed to take into account rounding the keeper, then this incident was not such a case.
Sam is clearly not a Sunday morning Referee.
Last edited:
ladbroke8745
Censorship
Dont know how more centrally he could be and be heading towards goal, even if 5° to the right, can't be seen as DOGSO yet you agree in the Blackburn thread with a few posts for DOGSO when play is nearer halfway line and nearer touchline, not even close to central like this one.
Oh well.
I can’t see that I made any comment in the Blackburn comment, only that I liked Rusty Ref reply, whereby what he said about Law was correct.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Not just rounding a defender, but squashing the effort to find excuses not to give earned red cards. General means general.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
That's DOGSO. And I think even PL reverses with VAR. Certainly every other VAR competition in the world does. There is no twist of language that can possibly say that the general direction of play is not towards the goal.l
ladbroke8745
Censorship
You liked comments that support DOGSO in that game but cant seem to support a foul, outside the area, very close to being central and only the keeper to beat.
The game where you "liked" the dogso posts (reasonings for agreeing to dogso) the attacker was much wider, had more to do, with more chance of a defender, who is running centrally, catching him..
Proves decisions are very subjective eh.
You are filling some gaps with guesswork. The truth was and still is, is that I liked Rusty’s comments because of what he said, but annoyingly and frustratingly, I couldn’t get the clip to work and I still can’t, though I had no trouble with the City clip.
For all those who are Referees who see that as a DOGSO from an armchair - I tend to agree with you. However, for all of these same people if you were on the actual game, can you say for certain that you would have done the same thing (red/DOGSO). For all those Observers who can imagine themselves at the game without the benefit of any replays, can you honestly say that you would mark the decision as an incorrect KMI. I would be interested to see replies.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
You've already pointed out that Sam is not Sunday level. Therefore his ability, reading of matches is far above any of us, with very experienced AR too who can give honest opinions too to "SUPPORT" the referee. If they can't see that as DOGSO on the field of play, then they've clearly got it wrong and an observer should most definitely be telling them that.
Its ok to be wrong. And im sure Sam will look back and say to himself "damn, got that wrong".
Its clear with replays it should have been DOGSO. And VAR would have helped him out.
Questions have always been asked by some on here, but mostly elsewhere, that referees are missing judgement on SFP calls and going safe and being bailed out on occasions but it has that feel of going safe again. A referee of his stature, ability etc should not be going safe. Its like they need confidence to make that call. They clearly have ability, they wouldn't be there.
It should have been DOGSO, but I think Sam Barrott found it difficult based on his position. This is the time of the foul ...
Nathan Ake is between him and the offence, and I suspect from the flat viewing angle he has he thinks that Ake is much closer to play than he actually was. A referee never wants to be looking straight down the barrel and that's exactly what he had here, the development advice from me would be to have created an angle. There's an argument to say that the AR should have helped, but we don't know what was said over comms.
VAR would (probably, we can't know for certain) have corrected it, but we seem to be forgetting that people no longer want VAR and have celebrated it not being used in this competition. Can't have it both ways unfortunately.
Nathan Ake is between him and the offence, and I suspect from the flat viewing angle he has he thinks that Ake is much closer to play than he actually was. A referee never wants to be looking straight down the barrel and that's exactly what he had here, the development advice from me would be to have created an angle. There's an argument to say that the AR should have helped, but we don't know what was said over comms.
VAR would (probably, we can't know for certain) have corrected it, but we seem to be forgetting that people no longer want VAR and have celebrated it not being used in this competition. Can't have it both ways unfortunately.