DOGSO in Arsenal v Hull

[GraemeS]

I only saw the two incidents in this match on MOTD last night and was a little surprised by the pundit's interpretation of the DOGSO laws.

The first incident (3:40) looked like a straightforward red for DOGSO-H, but the pundits were suggesting that the goalkeeper's position (directly behind the offending hand) means it would have been an easy save and should therefore only have been yellow. This isn't my understanding of DOGSO-H - I was under the impression that if a goalbound shot is saved with an outfield player's hand, that's pretty much red in every situation?

Second incident (8:20) is a bit less controversial, apart from the fact the referee was apparently going to ignore it until told otherwise by his assistant. Penalty and yellow card, as the attacker isn't moving towards the goal. But again, the MOTD pundits were suggesting the new laws saved him - wheras I think the GK is so so late, there's a strong case for that still being red if not for the fact the attacker's touch takes him out wide?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I disagree with the whole 'if the keeper was behind the ball it's not DOGSO-H' argument.
Although here the ball was going to the side of the keeper anyway. Maybe he would have saved it, maybe not. But even subscribing to the above notion, you'd want to have no doubt the keeper should be saving it.
Clear red card.

 

[SM]

Commentators are idiots.

The second challenge - the attacker was going way wide of the goal and defenders were getting back. No guarantee he would even have got a shot off. Clever play to ensure he got the penalty though

 

[SLI39]

I'm glad somebody posted this, as it certainly marked as one of the rankest examples of commentator ignorance--as people who have played and watched high-level football for years, it's unfathomable that they can constantly fabricate such bizarre laws. I raised my voice at the television when they suggested the player concerned had to be 'denying a certain goal'--that's not at all synonymous with the current DOGSO law, and in any case a potential 'certain goal' (contradictory in terms really) still relies on a referee's interpretation. Then Jermaine Jenas brought up the notion of 'double jeopardy' in connection with the law change. Not only is this plea irrelevant, it's also misleading when the referee has penalised a deliberate hand ball. A very cursory glance at the BBC's summary of the updated law would have provided him with this information.

 

[SM]

You have to wonder; players get paid a lot of money to play. They get paid a lot of money to commentate once their playing days are done. At no point in their careers did they think to pick up the LOTG and have a flipping read of it.

It's only been your job. All your adult lives.

 

[RustyRef]

I do have an element of sympathy here. Whilst it was undoubtedly a goal scoring opportunity, was it an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity. Personally for me I would probably have too much doubt on the obvious element to go red, but I don't think it was an incorrect decision. I just think that the keeper would save that more often than he wouldn't.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Key word OPPORTUNITY.

 

[deusex]

I'm not RCing for that.
It needs to be pretty obvious that the ball is ending up in the back of the net for me.
Element ofdoubt in my mind so the player stays on

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If the goalkeeper is on the goal at all then he's always got a good chance of stopping any shot. So are you saying you'll never send off for DOGSO-H if the keeper is still between the player/ball and the goal?
You're getting 'denies a goal' confused with 'denies an obvious goalscoring OPPORTUNITY'.
There was a clear and obvious opportunity here, and a fair chance the keeper would not have saved it. 'A chance he would have' is not sufficient.

 

[deusex]

If the goalkeeper is on the goal at all then he's always got a good chance of stopping any shot. So are you saying you'll never send off for DOGSO-H if the keeper is still between the player/ball and the goal?
You're getting 'denies a goal' confused with 'denies an obvious goalscoring OPPORTUNITY'.
There was a clear and obvious opportunity here, and a fair chance the keeper would not have saved it. 'A chance he would have' is not sufficient.

There is a fair chance the keeper WOULD have saved it. Surely the benefit of the doubt goes to the defender?
I'd be interested on some clarfification here.
My opinion is that once the ball has been kicked toward goal it no longer becomes "an opportunity". And any offence would have to be denying a goal.
I'd like to see any guidelines on this

 

[GraemeS]

There is a fair chance the keeper WOULD have saved it. Surely the benefit of the doubt goes to the defender?
I'd be interested on some clarfification here.
My opinion is that once the ball has been kicked toward goal it no longer becomes "an opportunity". And any offence would have to be denying a goal.
I'd like to see any guidelines on this

I think if you apply that logic, there would be no situation where DOGSO applies. Look at the Watford player on Sunday, who had an open goal but blazed wide. If he'd been hacked down just before taking that shot, everyone would have expected the fouler to see red - but as he missed, that can be shown as an example of how almost any situation carries a chance of a miss/defender recovery/world-class save/ball stopping in the mud.

I think you have (one has) to put the concept of "benefit of the doubt to the defender" out of your head for DOGSO, otherwise you can almost always find an excuse to only show yellow. Apply that for 50:50 throws, or 50:50 pulling matches sure, but once you've decided that the defender has fouled in a potential DOGSO situation, the "benefit of the doubt" has to almost reverse?

I gave one DOGSO last season for a foul by a defender about 10 yards outside the box. Keeper was still in position and may well have made a save - in fact, given the striker in question's strike rate so far that match, a goal was far from guaranteed. But I felt like I had to send him off just because it would otherwise have been a 1-on-1 and even if a miss or save was likely in this situation, convention (I suppose?) dictates that we give the striker the benefit of the doubt at that point.

 

[SM]

If shot has been taken and is flying on target goal wards, regardless of keepers position, a player sticking out an arm to stop the shot is always walking for a DOGSO surely. The wording for me is clear - opportunity. Not definite goal.

 

[PP62]

If shot has been taken and is flying on target goal wards, regardless of keepers position, a player sticking out an arm to stop the shot is always walking for a DOGSO surely. The wording for me is clear - opportunity. Not definite goal.

I agree with this. The defender in this scenario clearly intended to DOGSO so it must be an easy red card.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

There is a fair chance the keeper WOULD have saved it. Surely the benefit of the doubt goes to the defender?
I'd be interested on some clarfification here.
My opinion is that once the ball has been kicked toward goal it no longer becomes "an opportunity". And any offence would have to be denying a goal.
I'd like to see any guidelines on this

There's a fair chance he wouldn't have. I'd say there's a fairly OBVIOUS chance it may have wound up in the back of the net!
Don't forget that we happy send off a defender for DOGSO when the keeper is still on the line and most 1-on-1 chances are saved, not scored. In each instance the keeper is more likely to save it than not.

If you're going to keep a player on the field for deliberately handling the ball to stop a goal then you're going to need to find a really, really, really good reason to do so. 'Oh, the keeper might have saved it though' doesn't cut it.