Yeah i don’t hate nothing, although I think in some scenarios like this people expect a decision of some sort. Just my opinion.
Grimsby vs Gillingham
- Thread starter Runner Ref
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
IMO wouldn’t be supporting the referee team on the DOGSO, offside ruled out goal or the penalty.If you think that's bad look at the penalty decision at 1.00:
Grimsby 1-0 Gillingham
Grimsby took third place in Sky Bet League Two from Gillingham after beating them 1-0 at Blundell Park.www.skysports.com
Shoulder to shoulder equals a penalty
Second Yellow plus Red inside three minutes for Williams I would support!
Credit to Richard Dobson, Gillingham manager, was very respectful in his post match interview despite taking a caution himself.
Referee Zac Kennard-Kettle, son of Trevor Kettle, done well at 24, now in his second EFL season.
Busy match nine yellows & two reds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c62e36p3elzt
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway...ee-leaves-gillingham-coach-frustrated-331367/
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
According to Flashscores there was only 1 caution before this and that was to Grimsby.
Could it not be a foul, but fail on one (or more) of the DOGSO criteria?
For example it was a foul, but didn't believe he had reasonable control of the ball before covering a defender would have got back?
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Exactly where I’m at with it. The control factor is far too ambiguous for me. As I said earlier, he was barely stood upright
The only real doubt I would have is the speed the only covering defender was getting back at, looks as though he might have got beyond the attacker. Arguably though that is only because of the "foul".
The poor quality video doesn't really help, can't see the full picture.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
The four DOGSO considerations don't need to be met. They need to be, as the name suggests, considered in reaching a holistic view as to whether an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity has been denied. It's entirely possible (though highly unusual) for DOGSO to be the outcome, even if one or more of the four (typically direction but can also be distance) is seemingly 'failed'.
In the OP, there is no question as to whether the attacker would gain control. As for direction, his next touch would be directly towards goal. There is though, for me, some question as to whether the "covering" defender could get back and impact play in the time taken for the attacker to gain control and head towards goal. As the debate on here demonstrates, it's one of those decisions where the officials will be complained about regardless of what they decide.
He won't, because a successful appeal doesn't mean the referee was wrong. It just means that a bunch of ex-players and coaches with no refereeing qualifications think the suspension should be removed, the red card stays on the record and isn't rescinded. He's at Forest Green Rovers on Saturday and can't see that changing (and he was appointed before the appeal before anyone suggests he's been "demoted").
I thought the panel had an ex referee?
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Only to advise, I believe, on the laws and answer any questions they may have.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Whereas I’d say I don’t see how you can look at it and see a clear DOGSO. Player has slipped over and not fully stood up, then covering defender ends up being there pretty quickly.
But at the point where he is 'fouled' he is getting back to his feet, the ball is right next to him and the defender is still 8 yards back. The goalkeeper is backpeddling as fast as he can but is still a mile off his goal line.
We both seem to be at complete opposite ends of the spectrum with plenty of people in the middle of our views, but genuinely I think if he gets nailed there with a clear foul and you don't produce a red card, people are going to be gobsmacked.
That’s the key incident review panel, completely different to an appeals hearing panel.