RefSix

DOGSO, of a different kind....

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#2
I think the referee got both decisions wrong IMO. For me, The first penalty should have been a straight red, and the second offence being no booking at all, unless he went down the reckless route for the second booking
 

one

RefChat Addict
#3
Geo blocked for me but this works

First one is yellow for me. Benefit of doubt given for attempting to play the ball.

Second one yellow too but only for being reckless.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#4
Could a case be made for no card for the first one, on the basis that the ball was almost out of player and the attacked couldn't reach it? dogso nor spa for a ball crossing the boundary at point of foul?
 
Last edited:

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#5
The first one is textbook what I been posting for weeks, the referee (with help from AR) has opted to disregard the requirements for DOGSO and take the coward option of yellow, content that giving a pk is enough, and praying the pk is scored and we move on and folk forget it.
I see it every week at park level and here is it at senior level in front of the cameras too.
Too many referees need a refresher in the "downgrade" of red card for DOGSO. cautioned if, "attempt to play the ball"

Anyone deeming that an attempt to play the ball critically needs to consider their definition of playing the ball, ref is also too far away to make his call credible, yes its unexpected but, we need to be on our toes and aware of such unexpectedness ! We cant hide behind "ah nobody knew that was going to happen so let me off"

Weak, cowardly and unprepared refereeing. not able to get a credible view on things? maybe that goes hand in hand with fitness levels/awareness levels, two crucial criteria for most levels of officiating, certainly senior level.

27 secs in on the clip, alarm bells must start ringing and you have to get an angle, if not a credible distance on the call, You cannot stand motionless down barrel of gun and pray for the gk to kick clear.

Second one, (although I cant picture in my head why I would only have cautioned for the 1st one), he has to go, reckless,.


leave aside Taylors debatable call, its astonishing someone sends a referee out to a senior game who is not capable of taking the correct action here.
 

Alex Rush-Fear

Well-Known Member
#6
I agree with a yellow for the first one, I don't think the attacker's keeping the ball in play there. This is definitely not a "genuine attempt to play the ball" though.

Second one I think is just careless. Penalty, no more.
 

alexgr

RefChat Addict
#7
On the first one, the ball is rolling out of play as the attacker goes down so technically no card. I think football expects something here though.

Second one I think there’s an argument for reckless but I can see careless too. Neither DOGSO
 

one

RefChat Addict
#8
For me the attacker has a very good chance of keeping the ball in play. His next touch would have been on or inside the line. I know a pic doesn't tell the whole story but it does some give some of it.

1555928105488.png

1555928334533.png

Also on slow mo, there is a hint of dive there as well but it is a foul in either case.
 

es1

RefChat Addict
#9
1st one is absolutely a genuine attempt to play the ball, yellow for dogso (assuming you think it's a dogso - think that is debatable tbh) correct.

2nd one, another genuine attempt to play the ball. Clearly not dogso but could fall into spa or reckless easily.
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
#13
Difficult one...

I think I would cop out and ask my A/R for help on this one. Reason being: From the first angle (and probably from where the ref is), it looks like he has overhit it and the scoring chance isn't obvious. However, from the side on angle (or behind the goal) it looks a lot more clear cut. I think Yellow DOSGO is right, I think he's tried to swipe at the ball, but failed.


Second caution for reckless surely?

I reckon you could argue it either way for the first offence though.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#14
I don't think for a second that this is a genuine attempt to play the ball - you either decide that the player would have got to it before it went out and therefore give red, or decide that it would have gone out first and give the yellow that football expects as a minimum for this kind of obvious grab on an opponent. I think a yellow is fine though, as I'm fairly confident it was going out. But it's important to realise that's distinct from a downgraded DOGSO, which cannot apply here.

Agree with most of the thread on the second, it's not even close to SPA (let alone DOGSO) given where the ball goes after that touch, and I think the contact is fairly minimal, no card is necessary here.
 
#15
In first glance:
1st DOGSO-R no chance of playing the ball
2nd Careless pen no card. I don’t think it’s even an SPA downgrade.

On second glance:
I’d buy a reckless YC for the second... but I think nailed on RC for the first.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#16
For the first one the attacker isn't getting the ball, the keeper has made no attempt to play the ball, so caution for SPA fine with me.

I actually think the second is harsh, that was a genuine attempt that he's just mistimed. Penalty would have sufficed and no need for the second caution.
 
Top