A&H

Barnsley vs. Southend

Red or yellow?

  • Red

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • Yellow

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • Total voters
    13
The Referee Store
SxNYAu8.png


That's DOGSO for me.
 
DOGSO for me. Would he have scored? No idea. Would he have had an obvious opportunity to score. Yes absolutely. My reading is that he would have ended up with a shot from a tight but not ridiculous angle with the two defenders there to try and 'save' it. Certainly at this level of football that equates to a decent opportunity in my book
 
Four considerations:
  • Number of defenders - this can be argued to be 0 or 2 (depending, as they're almost even with the play, but "closer" to goal)
  • Distance to goal - Pretty close, within 20 yards (clearly)
  • Distance to ball - Maybe 3-4 yards, reasonable
  • Direction of play - Toward goal line, but well wide of goal
Based on that, I understand why the caution was given, but depending on the ref's angle of view, a sending off would also be quite reasonable here I'd say.
 
I'm always reluctant to give DOGSO when the attacker has actively changed his path away from goal. By the time he's regathered the ball, those defenders are back in play and the angle has become much more difficult - making a caution the right decision for me.
 
AlexF said:
Four considerations:
  • Number of defenders - this can be argued to be 0 or 2 (depending, as they're almost even with the play, but "closer" to goal)
  • Distance to goal - Pretty close, within 20 yards (clearly)
  • Distance to ball - Maybe 3-4 yards, reasonable
  • Direction of play - Toward goal line, but well wide of goal
Based on that, I understand why the caution was given, but depending on the ref's angle of view, a sending off would also be quite reasonable here I'd say.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that distance to the ball was one of the factors to be taken into consideration. The law talks about the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball which is not the same thing. The ball could be only inches from a player when an offence occurs and the player might still have had no chance of ever controlling the ball. To the best of my knowledge, this "distance to the ball" criterion comes from one of the USSF's less successful attempts to rewrite the Laws of the Game to make them easier to understand. However even they have since stopped issuing their "Advice to Referees" document and now advise their referees to follow the Laws of the Game alone.

As far as I'm concerned, the so-called "four D's" were never fully in accord with the Laws as issued by the IFAB and even the USSF no longer holds to them.
 
I actually pulled those out of an old FIFA considerations document rather than a USSF publication (note that I'm not a USSF referee anyhow). I simplified the phrases significantly, but the gist holds (well, held I guess) that "distance to ball" is really an extension of keeping and/or gaining control.

I should've likely used the latest considerations document to be honest as they're a lot more precise, and the words are as follows:
31 - What is the distance between the offence and the goal?
32 - Does the player have control of the ball?
33 - Can the player gain control of the ball?
34 - What is the direction of play?
35 - How many defenders are involved in the situation?
36 - Where are the defenders located?
Click to expand...

In this case, I still stand by my original outcome, just alter the reasoning slightly. :)
 
RegalRef said:
Maybe, but if it looks NOT DOGSO in real time that's all you can give, right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely and for that reason I reckon I'd be going caution on the pitch and would certainly could not criticise the ref on the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top