Chelsea v AC Milan

[Paul_10]

Thoughts on the DOGSO red card?

Incident starts around 4:05.

There is an argument the referee should show him an yellow because it's a pre season game but surely the referee needs to apply the laws and if he thinks it's a DOGSO then he has to go red regardless if it's a friendly or not.

 

[RustyRef]

Its the usual argument for pre-season friendlies, neither team wants the red card as they want to be practising 11 vs 11. There's a possible argument that the keeper might have got to the ball before the striker and for that reason I think a lot of referees would be managing this with a caution.

 

[RefereeX]

the keeper might have got to the ball before the keeper

Don't drink and refchat

In all seriousness - I'd agree. Any chance not to give a red card in a friendly I would take, and as much as I think I'd err on the side of DOGSO, it's easy enough for a friendly to give a caution and say the ball was equidistant between striker and keeper so the keeper may have got there first.

 

[Gabriel]

Pick a pocket player manage with yellow on this one because of the keeper may get there first argument

 

[Kes]

Can't believe a bunch of referees are saying that Salisbury should have produced a yellow card for a clear DOGSO!!

What about VC or SFP during a friendly then?

 

[Gabriel]

a clear DOGSO

I would disagree that this is clear DOGSO. One of the key considerations is "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball". I think this is one where the likelihood of the keeper gaining control of the ball first is equally as likely as the attacker gaining control of the ball, therefore making a yellow card more appropriate. Also, the attacker never actually once has control of the ball in the situation (I know this doesn't mean it's not DOGSO!), and the fact that the ball bounces would make it harder to say for sure that he will do so. In a competitive game, chances are everyone is going red. In a PSF, there is a very valid argument in this scenario for managing it with a yellow card.

 

[socal lurker]

This is the kind of play that makes me wish DOGSO officially took into account t the cynical nature of play. This was deliberate DOGSO with a blatant take down to stop a goal. This is exactly the kind of play that DOGSO was created to try to take out of the game.

 

[Kes]

I would disagree that this is clear DOGSO. One of the key considerations is "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball". I think this is one where the likelihood of the keeper gaining control of the ball first is equally as likely as the attacker gaining control of the ball, therefore making a yellow card more appropriate. Also, the attacker never actually once has control of the ball in the situation (I know this doesn't mean it's not DOGSO!), and the fact that the ball bounces would make it harder to say for sure that he will do so. In a competitive game, chances are everyone is going red. In a PSF, there is a very valid argument in this scenario for managing it with a yellow card.

We can debate the semantics of it all day long. Football will always be about angles/opinions/what ifs but without the clear, cynical foul on the Chelsea player, an obvious goal scoring opportunity is there. That's what DOGSO was invented to prevent/punish.
By producing the red, Salisbury showed clearly what he thought had occurred meaning that had he produced a yellow, he'd have been incorrect in law. "Competitive" game or not, he upheld the laws which is what he's paid to do. I just find it bizarre that referees on here would side with a pundit rather than a fellow professional getting it right.

 

[Paul_10]

Can't believe a bunch of referees are saying that Salisbury should have produced a yellow card for a clear DOGSO!!

What about VC or SFP during a friendly then?

I think the difference is if the referee went yellow here, no one will care because the scoreline is irrelevant and means nothing but with VC especially, you still got to manage player welfare so a nasty tackle or an act of violence should still be sanctioned with a red. I think deep down with barely 20mins on the clock, Chelsea would rather play against 11 than 10. I also agree with those who say the keeper may of got the ball first in anycase so might still be some controversy if it was a meaningful game.

 

[RefereeX]

Can't believe a bunch of referees are saying that Salisbury should have produced a yellow card for a clear DOGSO!!

What about VC or SFP during a friendly then?

For clarity, above all else, I'm in no way criticising Salisbury for giving a red card. Also, I believe the decision was correct.

My comment was to infer that I don't think it's an absolute stonewall DOGSO and that in a friendly match at my level, both teams would prefer a caution in that scenario as playing a friendly vs 10 men doesn't help anyone.

I'm not siding with a pundit - I've no idea what a pundit did or didn't say (I'm watching the video with no sound)

If that happens in my friendly, I'm going yellow, and I don't think anyone is complaining. If that happens in a league match, I'm probably going red.

Oh and, with respect sir, comparing it to VC or SFP is a rather silly comparison. Players will want to be protected during friendly matches so would expect to see the red card in them scenarios.

This is the kind of play that makes me wish DOGSO officially took into account t the cynical nature of play. This was deliberate DOGSO with a blatant take down to stop a goal. This is exactly the kind of play that DOGSO was created to try to take out of the game.

I disagree that it's a deliberate take down to stop a goal to be fair. I'm not sure why a player would do that in a friendly or what they would gain. I think it starts with a bit of a tussle and as the striker gets the upper hand the defender desperately and clumsily clings on to try and prevent him having the upper hand as he falls over, which brings the striker down.

 

[Kes]

For clarity, above all else, I'm in no way criticising Salisbury for giving a red card. Also, I believe the decision was correct.

My comment was to infer that I don't think it's an absolute stonewall DOGSO and that in a friendly match at my level, both teams would prefer a caution in that scenario as playing a friendly vs 10 men doesn't help anyone.

I'm not siding with a pundit - I've no idea what a pundit did or didn't say (I'm watching the video with no sound)

If that happens in my friendly, I'm going yellow, and I don't think anyone is complaining. If that happens in a league match, I'm probably going red.

Oh and, with respect sir, comparing it to VC or SFP is a rather silly comparison. Players will want to be protected during friendly matches so would expect to see the red card in them scenarios.



I disagree that it's a deliberate take down to stop a goal to be fair. I'm not sure why a player would do that in a friendly or what they would gain. I think it starts with a bit of a tussle and as the striker gets the upper hand the defender desperately and clumsily clings on to try and prevent him having the upper hand as he falls over, which brings the striker down.

The comparison with VC and SFP is a valid one (IMO) because they're both expected red cards under the LOTG - just like DOGSO.

On the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree Sir.

 

[JamesL]

The comparison with VC and SFP is a valid one (IMO) because they're both expected red cards under the LOTG - just like DOGSO.

On the rest, we'll just have to agree to disagree Sir.

Outcome is the same but the severity of challenge that leads to the outcome is not equal.

For example a careless foul that is DOGSO is DOGSO red card but a VC or SFP that is also DOGSO is reported as VC or SFP as we know what laws say when multiple offences happen at the same time we punish the most serious offence.

Thus thet are not equal offences despite having the same outcome.

 

[Kes]

Outcome is the same but the severity of challenge that leads to the outcome is not equal.

For example a careless foul that is DOGSO is DOGSO red card but a VC or SFP that is also DOGSO is reported as VC or SFP as we know what laws say when multiple offences happen at the same time we punish the most serious offence.

Thus thet are not equal offences despite having the same outcome.

If you put it like that then it's difficult to argue against your point James (as per usual ) but the notion that Salisbury should perhaps have gone yellow for a DOGSO offence "because it's only a friendly" irrespective of the fact that it's a match being watched by millions across the globe is just nuts to me.

 

[RefereeX]

If you put it like that then it's difficult to argue against your point James (as per usual ) but the notion that Salisbury should perhaps have gone yellow for a DOGSO offence "because it's only a friendly" irrespective of the fact that it's a match being watched by millions across the globe is just nuts to me.

This I don't disagree with. I was posting about what I would do, not what Graham Salisbury should have done.

 

[JamesL]

If you put it like that then it's difficult to argue against your point James (as per usual ) but the notion that Salisbury should perhaps have gone yellow for a DOGSO offence "because it's only a friendly" irrespective of the fact that it's a match being watched by millions across the globe is just nuts to me.

I don't disagree with the principle of your point, tbf, I'm just disagreeing with your comparison between the offences and adding zero value to the debate

 

[Kes]

I'm leaving this thread now since the L3's are ganging up on me and it just ain't fair.

(Flounces off to a different thread)

 

[JamesL]

I'm leaving this thread now since the L3's are ganging up on me and it just ain't fair.

(Flounces off to a different thread)

We'll be waiting for you...

 

[Kes]

We'll be waiting for you...

Now why don't I doubt that at all!!

 

[Archer]

Not a single Salisbury mis-steak pun.

You’re all slacking.

 

[RustyRef]

Don't drink and refchat

In all seriousness - I'd agree. Any chance not to give a red card in a friendly I would take, and as much as I think I'd err on the side of DOGSO, it's easy enough for a friendly to give a caution and say the ball was equidistant between striker and keeper so the keeper may have got there first.

D'oh, can't even blame alcohol for that one, I'll blame the sun instead. Corrected.