Ipswich v Forest missed DOGSO

[bloovee]

VAR thought it a C&O error. Ref Thomas Bramall (having missed the foul entirely) gave the FK after OFR but "because the player knocks it to the right side of the goal, the final decision is direct free-kick and a yellow card to No.6."

1.04.30 start of second half

Match of the Day - 24/10/2026

Highlights from five Premier League games, with last season’s top two both in action. Manchester City travel to Aston Villa in Saturday’s early game before Arsenal entertain Everton at the Emirates.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[RustyRef]

The description wasn't helpful, he didn't really knock it wide. But I do think the VAR intervention was incorrect, the attacker's touch before being fouled was heavy and even if he somehow got to the ball before it went out of play or the keeper got it it would have been an impossible angle. So for that reason I'm pleased Thomas Bramhall rejected the advice, whilst accepting he'd missed the foul and giving a free kick and caution.

 

[socal lurker]

The description wasn't helpful, he didn't really knock it wide.

“Not helpful,” is quite generous. It was simply inaccurate. My first take was it was too far ahead. I’m not sure that’s right when you consider pace pre-foul and how far back the GK was. C&O warranting review is another question. And I do wonder if the VAR is also think it should have been at least a caution and DFK, and went with the review recommendation in part for that reason.

Assuming for the moment that caution and DFK is the correct call here, it is a definite quirk of the VAR world that the only way to get to the correct call is for the VAR to make an incorrect recommendation.

 

[bloovee]

It doesn't need to be a certain goal to be DOGSO. It’s one on one with the GK and maybe not the best angle (only because the attacker was trying to avoid an incoming foul tackle) but are we really calculating whether the GK saves the obvious incoming shot?