A&H

goalkeeper sent off for handball - dogso?

Runner Ref said:
As I said in my above post, I'm comfortable with a penalty, but don't think it's as stonewall as some believe.

The bit I hate is the bit I've put in bold. I used to hear this at training events as well, and have always hated it.

Football expected NFFC to have had at least 1 penalty last week

Football expected Luis Diaz' goal to have been awarded vs Spurs

Football expected Wolves to have had a penalty against Utd

Football expected the opposite outcome to what was reached in the above examples. But the officials clearly didn't want to do what football expects. So that to me suggests it's just a useless phrase that in thrown out when we're looking for an answer.
Click to expand...

For clarification, the offence happens outside the penalty area so can't be a penalty. And even if it was inside, it can't be a penalty, would have to be an IDFK.
 
The Referee Store
wazztie16 said:
For clarification, the offence happens outside the penalty area so can't be a penalty. And even if it was inside, it can't be a penalty, would have to be an IDFK.
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have said red, not penalty!

Although had he been inside the area, there would be no IDFK ;)
 
Runner Ref said:
As I said in my above post, I'm comfortable with a penalty, but don't think it's as stonewall as some believe.

The bit I hate is the bit I've put in bold. I used to hear this at training events as well, and have always hated it.

Football expected NFFC to have had at least 1 penalty last week

Football expected Luis Diaz' goal to have been awarded vs Spurs

Football expected Wolves to have had a penalty against Utd

Football expected the opposite outcome to what was reached in the above examples. But the officials clearly didn't want to do what football expects. So that to me suggests it's just a useless phrase that in thrown out when we're looking for an answer.
Click to expand...
IFAB acknowledges from the get go that the subjectiveness of the officials is part of the enjoyment of the game 'this discussion is part of the game's enjoyment and attraction' (About the Laws - Philosophy and Spirit).

Prem referees make 245 decisions a game, and there are typically 19 Prem games a week. Meaning we get 4,655 decisions to have a crack at every week if we are limiting ourselves to the Prem.
(https://www.skysports.com/football/...ing-how-many-decisions-do-officials-get-right)

What football expects means very different things to very different people and it is being used right now to keep people interested in football in a very competitive space, trying for the attention of the next generation.

I wouldn't be surprised if IFAB and FIFA are trying to keep things as controversial as possible for the interaction it is getting them.
 
santa sangria said:
I think the most important thing here is football expects a red card here.

I don’t think it’s DOG. It’s on target but defenders will reach it in reality.

I think the DOGSO considerations for location and number of defenders and likelihood of control are not 100% met.

But they are only considerations. Perhaps the laws cannot cover every scenario.

I think it comes down to what red card code to use. I think DOG is best here. GK stopped a shot on target at an empty goal with a handball outside the box 19yards from goal.
Click to expand...
DOG isn’t a send off code unless I’m missing something glaringly obvious? The laws mention DOG and DOGSO but there’s no distinction in the offence.
The options are:
Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
Or
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

Obviously it would have to be the top one…
 
RefereeX said:
DOG isn’t a send off code unless I’m missing something glaringly obvious? The laws mention DOG and DOGSO but there’s no distinction in the offence.
The options are:
Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
Or
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

Obviously it would have to be the top one…
Click to expand...
Sorry, you are right;)
 
OldNavyRef said:
What football expects means very different things to very different people and it is being used right now to keep people interested in football in a very competitive space, trying for the attention of the next generation.

I wouldn't be surprised if SKY TV are trying to keep things as controversial as possible for the interaction it is getting them (and the advertising revenue they can earn).
Click to expand...
Fixed for you
 
The Ginger Ref said:
Not sure how this isn't DOGSO, applying the laws of the game:

"Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)."
  • distance between the offence and the goal = 20 yards
  • general direction of the play = going towards goal
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball = the ball is potentially going straight in the goal so not required
  • location and number of defenders = whilst 3 defenders, they are unlikely to get the ball if it is going in
Click to expand...
We've had this discussion before (just over a month ago). There are two different but closely-related offences that are often conflated; denying a goal (DOG), and denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). This particular incident falls into the DOG category, rather than DOGSO.

And when it comes to DOG offences, as confirmed by the IFAB just last month, the four DOGSO considerations do not apply.

See response below that I got from them on this.

Screenshot_2024_0429_154314.png
 
Peter Grove said:
We've had this discussion before (just over a month ago). There are two different but closely-related offences that are often conflated; denying a goal (DOG), and denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). This particular incident falls into the DOG category, rather than DOGSO.

And when it comes to DOG offences, as confirmed by the IFAB just last month, the four DOGSO considerations do not apply.

See response below that I got from them on this.

View attachment 7290
Click to expand...
Peter:

Thank you.

In your opinion does the keeper DOG?
 
santa sangria said:
Or maybe “what football expects” is a key concept in the LotG specifically for us to help cope with the laws not bring able to cover every situation.

At least I am comfortable with this idea when it comes to specific fouls/sanctions - classic example is sliding fullback tackle that takes ball and then a lot of player. Or here we don’t have DOG or DOGSO neatly framed for us in the book.

(I don’t like trying to apply this concept to massive howlers like the Diaz offside. I don’t think the concept is there to undo/reverse the laws as written)

View attachment 7284
Click to expand...
The football expectations should only come in when the laws don't cover a situation. In this case it does. Our assesment of facts may differ (was the ball going in) but the scenario is clearly covered in law.

Using football expects here is putting the horse before the cart. ☺️
 
OldNavyRef said:
I think anytime the goalkeeper is outside their box, all attempts on goal become an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Refer to considerations in listed in law for DOGSO. Though the OP is ont a DOGSO as already mentioned. It's a DOG.
 
one said:
The football expectations should only come in when the laws don't cover a situation. In this case it does. Our assesment of facts may differ (was the ball going in) but the scenario is clearly covered in law.

Using football expects here is putting the horse before the cart. ☺️
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
  • Love
Reactions: one
The referee gets one look at it, and actually has a very good angle to see whether the header was on target without the handling. If he thinks it was, and he clearly did, he has to go red unless he has any kind of confidence that someone will stop the ball before it reaches the goal.
 
Just seems we don't ever wish to support referees, any reason to criticise, undermine is the preferred option. It's not wrong in law, the power /pace of the header & the referee's view of its trajectory, should be enough to back the referee.
 
DJIC said:
Just seems we don't ever wish to support referees, any reason to criticise, undermine is the preferred option. It's not wrong in law, the power /pace of the header & the referee's view of its trajectory, should be enough to back the referee.
Click to expand...
I agree but those days are well and truly gone

With the coverage and angles appeals are more likely.

I would like to see the written reasons for overturning the red card.
 
Kent Ref said:
I agree but those days are well and truly gone

With the coverage and angles appeals are more likely.

I would like to see the written reasons for overturning the red card.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing they'll maybe put it down to the pace on the ball. It's hard to tell as the keeper touched it so soon after, but didn't appear to be travelling that fast.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top