I saw this video and wouldn’t mind a clarification

[Ori]

so in this video the ref gives DOGSO and it feels like the right decision to me, but I would want to know why it’s correct in law.
Even though there is a defender that could reach in time, the keeper foul effectively made that defender the keeper and hence DOGSO still applies?

131K views · 211 reactions | I'm Shocked he was sent off, straight red card. | Red Card Football Highlights

I'm Shocked he was sent off, straight red card..

www.facebook.com

 

[Russell Jones]

At the risk of stating the obvious, It’s correct in law because the foul by the goalkeeper denied the attacker an obvious goal scoring opportunity!

The four considerations are simply that .. things that need to be considered to help decide if an OGSO was denied. In this case, Distance and Direction are fine, the attacker was in the process of Controlling the ball and the presence / involvement of the one other defender would likely not have prevented the attacker from attempting a shot at an unguarded net.

 

[socal lurker]

If there is no keeper there, any opportunity is definitely better than it would be if the keeper was in the net!

I also think this is exactly the kind of play DOGSO was designed for—the keeper simply takes out a player who is likely to score.

 

[one]

Though not in law, the common practice to assess the obviousness of DOGSO is to take the foul and the fouler out and then continue play.

In this case it means, if not a shot into and unguarded goal, it's a one on one against a defender who can't use his hands. Which is a better chance than a one on one with a keeper. To me that would be D-very-OGSO.