And who would say the world is flat if it got him a bit of publicity.
DOGSO? BCFC V SWFC
- Thread starter Pembroke
- Start date
No I think its good to use football knowledge to understand whats going on as a ref. You were adamant the defender only went backwards and was not in front of the keeper and it was 1-1 . Applying football knowledge well thats incorrect another picture. It was not 1v1 v the keeper and that defender shifts as the keeper came out and as the BCFC player move off his touch.
Night really now from Pembroke. A Bristol City fan.
R
Runner-Ref
Guest
There have already been multiple Screenshots in here showing the covering defender standing behind the goalkeeper as the challenge was made. Had he gone out and pressed in the above image, it would change things a lot. But by the time the attacker reaches the area, the defenders movement is backwards.
Referees cannot start guessing what the defending teams tactics are. They messed up their attempt to play out from the back, and Bannan knew he needed to intervene before the attacker got his shot away (or pass as he had people either side)
Referees will use 'football knowledge' to work out their positioning for certain phases of play or set pieces, but they cannot start to use it to decide whether to send someone off for DOGSO. This would lead to further inconsistencies.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
There isn't a DOGSO test, there are DOGSO considerations. So if you're sticking religiously to a non-existent "test" then you're not doing yourself any favours.
And while the number of defenders must be considered, so must their location and nowhere does it say (nor does it make any logical sense to say) that a specific number of defenders precludes the possibility of a DOGSO offence occurring.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It doesn't have to be.
one
RefChat Addict
At the moment of the foul the attacker wasn't going to shoot. He pushed the ball to the right just before it. So all this information becomes irrelevant. The goal could have been empty at that moment and still the same. DOGSO is not a snapshot like offside. It's about envisioning the possibilities had the foul not happened (and as common practice taking the offender out of the picture).
I refer back to my image of post #28 where I think would have been the best opportunity for a goal scoring shot. Now if anyone thinks it's an obvious GSO, fair enough and I accept that. But you must also be able to see that it is a lesser opportunity than a stock standard 1v 1 which is a common DOGSO. So if it is not considered as obvious by some one , it must also be an accepted opinion.
Subjective decisions are hardly black or white. That's why close ones create so much debate here. And that's part of the beauty of the game.
RefRyanAus
Active Member
I am happy with DOGSO here. It is a cynical challenge and the defender is effectively playing Russian roulette with the decision of the referee. I agree there is uncertainty about some of the considerations but I also feel like some posters are asking a lot of the referee to balance everything that goes on in this one moment, including the minutia of some of the observed mitigations. From my perspective it was an obvious chance to score with the attacker having every prospect of maintaining ball control and finding an angle that works for him. I don’t think we need to assign absolute certainty of a goal but it seems a very good opportunity to me with a high level of likelihood in most circumstances. It is also important to note (I think) that there is always some uncertainty with DOGSO, particularly where distance to goal is a factor and there is a fair way to travel. However, we often feel comfortable in awarding these when the attacker gets past the last defender on the basis of assumed competence to finish the job. Anyway… just my 5 cents worth.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
That's not a consideration. The question to ask is "had the fouling defending been removed from the field of play, would the player who was fouled have had an OGSO?" In this case, I still argue the answer is "yes" because he has a clear shot on goal available to him, and about 8 yards of space from which to take it. A player of his quality will be able to take a shot on goal, toward the open side of the goal, from this position.
Of course. 110% it was not a red card. There are those who know football, and those who don't.
Forgetting the jest. Sincere question. The D of distance - How far from goal should dogso not apply?
Last edited:
It depends on the skill level of the players; but a foul on the halfway line absolutely can be DOGSO, for example.
I was thinking can I create a scenario where DOGSO can apply on the half way line and my understanding was yes. Thank you.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
As I recall, this has happened a few times. I certainly remember one instance as it involved my team, Middlesbrough. It was against Fulham at Craven Cottage in 2016. In fact, it was even further back than the half way line, Boro's Jordan Rhodes was about 10 yards inside his own half when he was brought down.
Incident at 1m 55s into the clip below.
It was quite a controversial decision at the time - quite a few people didn't agree with it being DOGSO.
Incident at 1m 55s into the clip below.
It was quite a controversial decision at the time - quite a few people didn't agree with it being DOGSO.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
IMHO, part of the problem is when people look at it as 4 independent factors answering yes/no to each one. I don’t think that is the right approach. Where the location of defenders is farther away, a greater distance from the goal can still be a GSO. At the professional level, I don’t think there is any issue about whether, given the rest of the context, a foul at midfield can qualify. In a youth game or lower skilled adult game, not so much.
(I also think the nature of the foul should count somewhat, though at a technical level it doesn’t under Law 12. The Law was adopted to help eliminate cynical fouls that prevent goals. I think the thumb should be a bit on the scale to deciding DOGSO when it is a cynical, deliberate foul. And I think the thumb should be a bit the other way when it is an “honest” foul. I think the nature of the foul can/should contribute on what might be an “orange“ DOGSO scenario. YMMV.)
(I also think the nature of the foul should count somewhat, though at a technical level it doesn’t under Law 12. The Law was adopted to help eliminate cynical fouls that prevent goals. I think the thumb should be a bit on the scale to deciding DOGSO when it is a cynical, deliberate foul. And I think the thumb should be a bit the other way when it is an “honest” foul. I think the nature of the foul can/should contribute on what might be an “orange“ DOGSO scenario. YMMV.)
Especially when Jordan Rhodes always looked like he was running through treacle!