DOGSO? BCFC V SWFC

[JamesL]

As a very qualified coach ex semi pro defender and now well meaning trying to always do better ref the process is D deny space, D delay D dictate D depth and the defender are hitting d's because they 100% are not off to the goal line!! The keeper is denying space and attempting to dictate where he wants to the attacker to be. The defender shifts his is d's in relation to the keepers, and where the attacker is going with the ball to move the foward away from goal. He provide depth to the keeper by not dropping to the goal line and both defender and gk are trying to take the attacker away from goal.

All due respect, you need to stop thinking like a player/coach and making up your own interpretations "to better the ref process".

The laws are clear what the considerations are, you're not in a position (e.g. national referee manager / IFAB board member) to be doing that.

 

[Runner-Ref]

As a very qualified coach ex semi pro defender and now well meaning trying to always do better ref the process is D deny space, D delay D dictate D depth and the defender are hitting d's because they 100% are not off to the goal line!! The keeper is denying space and attempting to dictate where he wants to the attacker to be. The defender shifts his is d's in relation to the keepers, and where the attacker is going with the ball to move the foward away from goal. He provide depth to the keeper by not dropping to the goal line and both defender and gk are trying to take the attacker away from goal.

But he practically ends up on the goal line. Watch the footage again; the defenders movement is backwards, backwards, backwards.

As has been said, there are the considerations to take into account, but they are just that, considerations. If Bannan doesn't foul the attacker, he has got a clear shot on goal from inside the penalty area in a central position. If the covering defender had gone out to press the attacker, that potentially changes things if he was in a playing distance of the attacker. But as he doesn't, it's an OGSO

 

[RustyRef]

Also a Wednesday fan and I think it is a clear red card. Had the defender gone to press the attacker then I would agree that it wouldn't be obvious enough, but in backing off towards the goal line he has taken himself out of the equation. Look at the situation at the time of the foul, you have an attacker pretty central on the edge of the penalty area able to get a shot away unchallenged. The law doesn't say that all of the four DDDC considerations have to be met for it to be DOGSO.

 

[Pembroke]

All due respect, you need to stop thinking like a player/coach and making up your own interpretations "to better the ref process".

The laws are clear what the considerations are, you're not in a position (e.g. national referee manager / IFAB board member) to be doing that.

I am merely asking some whys. Thats it in regards to the Sheff W players I am not making up my interpretations regarding what they are doing at this point. They started out of shape and move into pretty text book defending principles to get to this point where Bannan? then upends the attacker.

I am asking about the reffing whys at this point i'm not convinced about the attackers touch and control it was heavy one taking him away from goal direction?? and then the covering defenders? Hence i wasnt convinced by the decision. Keith Hackett wasnt convinced by it neither was I.

But he practically ends up on the goal line. Watch the footage again; the defenders movement is backwards, backwards, backwards.

i think Weds got caught playing out and the defenders had split then we see the short clip here. The defenders come across then moves into relation to what is happening in front of him and what his keeper does. His keepers closes the attacker down and defender goes to forty five degrees to give depth to the keeper, his body is turned, he is supporting his keeper showing the opponent outside and not going to the goal line..

 

[DJIC]

I am merely asking some whys. Thats it in regards to the Sheff W players I am not making up my interpretations regarding what they are doing at this point. They started out of shape and move into pretty text book defending principles to get to this point where Bannan? then upends the attacker.

I am asking about the reffing whys at this point i'm not convinced about the attackers touch and control it was heavy one taking him away from goal direction?? and then the covering defenders? Hence i wasnt convinced by the decision. Keith Hackett wasnt convinced by it neither was I.


i think Weds got caught playing out and the defenders had split then we see the short clip here. The defenders come across then moves into relation to what is happening in front of him and what his keeper does. His keepers closes the attacker down and defender goes to forty five degrees to give depth to the keeper, his body is turned, he is supporting his keeper showing the opponent outside and not going to the goal line..

I‘m not convinced the defenders set up changes anything, I would expect the attackers next action if he was not upended would be to ’pass’ the ball beyond the goal keeper low & hard. The GK or defender may have saved or stopped it but it is still denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, DOGSO is not going to be denying a certain goal. Imho, supports a red card.

Change this to a yellow card/free kick I am sure the referee would get dog‘s abuse (excuse the pun)!

 

[one]

I am ok with a DOGSO here. But I err on the side of no DOGSO.

Putting forward the other side of the argument to those saying DOGSO.

Quite a few comments here are about the 'defender' not going to the attacker. Don't forget there are two defenders between the ball and goal one of them is the keeper who is going towards the ball. Given he can use his hands he can close the angle much better than a non-keeper defender. The other factor for me is the touch is taking the ball wide where it clearly brings the second defender into play who can block a good chunk of the goal (yes he can't use his hands). It is now much more difficult to round the keeper and shoot at an empty goal. And without rounding the keeper there is much less it the goal to shoot at. Had the touch been taking the ball the other way it would have been a much easier decision.

In short, is this a goal scoring opportunity, yes. Is it an obvious one, a very close no for me.

 

[Runner-Ref]

This is the attackers last touch before the foul. I think its a bit of a stretch to say hes going away from goal

 

[one]

This is the attackers last touch before the foul. I think its a bit of a stretch to say hes going away from goalView attachment 6952

I think there is a difference between taking it wide which is what I said and taking it away from goal.

Still image doesn't give the whole story. It's not about where the ball is where he took that touches but we're he would name reached it for a shot or another touch. Mine is also a still image but illustrates how the second defender is clearly in play had the attacker not been fouled and where he would have likely reached the ball for a shot.

 

[JamesL]

I am merely asking some whys.

As a very qualified coach ex semi pro defender and now well meaning trying to always do better ref the process is D deny space, D delay D dictate D depth and the defender are hitting d's because they 100% are not off to the goal line!!

What are these? These are considerations you have made up!

In respect to comments about direction of play it is general direction and was cleared up a couple to years ago to say that it does not need to be directly at goal, but that the general direction of play is towards goal. Can't be anything but here. Not even questionable.

 

[JamesL]

I am ok with a DOGSO here. But I err on the side of no DOGSO.

Putting forward the other side of the argument to those saying DOGSO.

Quite a few comments here are about the 'defender' not going to the attacker. Don't forget there are two defenders between the ball and goal one of them is the keeper who is going towards the ball. Given he can use his hands he can close the angle much better than a non-keeper defender. The other factor for me is the touch is taking the ball wide where it clearly brings the second defender into play who can block a good chunk of the goal (yes he can't use his hands). It is now much more difficult to round the keeper and shoot at an empty goal. And without rounding the keeper there is much less it the goal to shoot at. Had the touch been taking the ball the other way it would have been a much easier decision.

In short, is this a goal scoring opportunity, yes. Is it an obvious one, a very close no for me.

True but the attacker has 2 very easy passes either way, which would create an open goal scenario so taking that whole picture in sit just the other side of the dogso line, but as I said in my post, no DOGSO is supportable too, with the right explanation

 

[Pembroke]

What are these? These are considerations you have made up!

In respect to comments about direction of play it is general direction and was cleared up a couple to years ago to say that it does not need to be directly at goal, but that the general direction of play is towards goal. Can't be anything but here. Not even questionable.

The considerations in the rules are not made up. Which is why in my first post I have asked dogso?

I am ok with a DOGSO here. But I err on the side of no DOGSO.

Putting forward the other side of the argument to those saying DOGSO.

Quite a few comments here are about the 'defender' not going to the attacker. Don't forget there are two defenders between the ball and goal one of them is the keeper who is going towards the ball. Given he can use his hands he can close the angle much better than a non-keeper defender. The other factor for me is the touch is taking the ball wide where it clearly brings the second defender into play who can block a good chunk of the goal (yes he can't use his hands). It is now much more difficult to round the keeper and shoot at an empty goal. And without rounding the keeper there is much less it the goal to shoot at. Had the touch been taking the ball the other way it would have been a much easier decision.

In short, is this a goal scoring opportunity, yes. Is it an obvious one, a very close no for me.

The defender would have gone to the attacking player space if the gk didn't. The keepers up sharp to narrow the angle and push the attacking player away from goal. The touch does take the player wider. The defender is positioning himself v the gk, position of ball and goal. If that player was not fouled there were a lot of variables that could have occurred. The defender and gk were in close proximity and with another touch they are all over him. The keeper could have been on top without another touch no foul and with a covering defender.

Goal scoring opportunity yes. Obvious I go no.

 

[santa sangria]

Wednesday fan here.

For me this was a DOGSO. There is no test for DOGSO, they are considerations and each situation can only be judged on merit. The presence of 1 defender, does not automatically take DOGSO out of the equation.

There's no questions or distance, direction, or control.

There is a question over number and location of defenders. In the scenario the player is about to shoot, the defender is moving backwards and the keeper is coming over to attempt a save.

I think you could justify a decision either way, but I personally sit on the side of DOGSO here. That's the ultimate question that has to be answered, and for me in the professional game especially I'm hard pressed to call that anything but. It's a 3 on 2, it's more than a promising attack for me and ultimately can support the red card outcome.

What he said!!!

 

[santa sangria]

Another way to look at this: why does the defender feel the need to make a blatant foul here? Well, the attacker is about to have s great chance to score, you could even call it an obvious goalscoring opportunity. So bleedin’ obvious the defender has to stop it!

Red. Card.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

The considerations in the rules are not made up. Which is why in my first post I have asked dogso?

The defender would have gone to the attacking player space if the gk didn't. The keepers up sharp to narrow the angle and push the attacking player away from goal. The touch does take the player wider. The defender is positioning himself v the gk, position of ball and goal. If that player was not fouled there were a lot of variables that could have occurred. The defender and gk were in close proximity and with another touch they are all over him. The keeper could have been on top without another touch no foul and with a covering defender.

Goal scoring opportunity yes. Obvious I go no.

The considerations in Law 12 (not "rules") are at variance with those you have invented. Have a read.

 

[Pembroke]

The considerations in Law 12 (not "rules") are at variance with those you have invented. Have a read.

Nothing invented. I would apply them laws to this.

As others have said no obvious dogso including top ex refs on that x . Too much going on. Disagree agree and this one Its just a matter of differing perception this one.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Nothing invented. I would apply them laws to this.

As others have said no obvious dogso including top ex refs on that x . Too much going on. Disagree agree and this one Its just a matter of differing perception this one.

You keep sharing the same image, and I'm not convinced it does much to argue your case for you (plus you need to take freeze frames with a pinch of salt). According to the image, the attacker is through on goal and pretty much central. Yes there is a covering defender, but his backwards movement basically takes himself out of the equation. As I and @RustyRef mentjined earlier; if the defender attempted to press the attacker, it quite possibly changes things. I know you keep mentioning the tactics as to why they are doing what they're doing, and I get it, but it's not really a consideration for a referee to take.

If the former referee you're speaking of it Keith Hackett, I'd also take him with a pinch of salt

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Nothing invented. I would apply them laws to this.

As others have said no obvious dogso including top ex refs on that x . Too much going on. Disagree agree and this one Its just a matter of differing perception this one.

Except you have introduced DDDD as your considerations. Referees will continue to use Law 12.

 

[Pembroke]

You keep sharing the same image, and I'm not convinced it does much to argue your case for you (plus you need to take freeze frames with a pinch of salt). According to the image, the attacker is through on goal and pretty much central. Yes there is a covering defender, but his backwards movement basically takes himself out of the equation. As I and @RustyRef mentjined earlier; if the defender attempted to press the attacker, it quite possibly changes things. I know you keep mentioning the tactics as to why they are doing what they're doing, and I get it, but it's not really a consideration for a referee to take.

If the former referee you're speaking of it Keith Hackett, I'd also take him with a pinch of salt

. As others have said including the former top ref Keith you can see this differently. Why they are doing what they are doing really should be a consideration and again there are refs on this thread who are considering that to hold merit. And that was it. A difference of opinion on laws that will occur now and again.

 

[Runner-Ref]

. As others have said including the former top ref Keith you can see this differently. Why they are doing what they are doing really should be a consideration and again there are refs on this thread who are considering that to hold merit. And that was it. A difference of opinion on laws that will occur now and again.

It is not the referees job to assume what players are doing tactically. You are thinking as a player/coach, as opposed to a referee.

Again, Keith Hackett the Sheffield Wednesday fan.

 

[Pembroke]

Except you have introduced DDDD as your considerations. Referees will continue to use Law 12.

I will leave it to those who know a lot more than me ad most will but law 12 includes dogso and them considerations with a C. All good anyway. Good night.