The Ref Stop

Leicester Arsenal - Red Card

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Ref Stop
Ciley Myrus said:
Has the attacker been denied a chance to score a goal by the actions of an opponent
Click to expand...
Ciley, way back on Page 1 of this thread I said that I was on the fence on this decision. The vehement differing opinions subsequently given in favour of Yellow / Red, for me demonstrate that either decision can be justified.

However, about 6 times in this thread you have used the phrase 'chance to score a goal' and this is just massively unhelpful in the context of the DOGSO law. A player fouled on the halfway line with 6 defenders between him and the goal has been denied a chance to score a goal. Just a pretty small one!

Red for DOGSO only applies when that chance / opportunity is OBVIOUS. You're well within your rights to see this scenari as an OGSO .. but I think we can all agree that it's way less obvious than many others ..
 
Okay, Sheffield and Padfoot, for theory's sake. Let's say that the ref (and presumably his crew as well) are certain this is a DOGSO. They issue the expected red, Arsenal doesn't appeal and to be honest, a lot of referees are sure the other defender doesn't get back. Does that make your opinion invalid? Because it does seem like you're discrediting the others while this is a massive case of ITOOTR. Hence, we're not really trying to discredit each other, we're just trying to convince all the others that our perception of obvious is the correct one, how little doubt or how much doubt (if any) you'll allow to exist in that opinion.
 
Jorik0907 said:
Okay, Sheffield and Padfoot, for theory's sake. Let's say that the ref (and presumably his crew as well) are certain this is a DOGSO. They issue the expected red, Arsenal doesn't appeal and to be honest, a lot of referees are sure the other defender doesn't get back. Does that make your opinion invalid? Because it does seem like you're discrediting the others while this is a massive case of ITOOTR. Hence, we're not really trying to discredit each other, we're just trying to convince all the others that our perception of obvious is the correct one, how little doubt or how much doubt (if any) you'll allow to exist in that opinion.
Click to expand...

No.

What is being said is that in this instance the referee made a poor decision, due largely to the fact that there was another defender in a position where they had a possibility of intercepting the attacker, thus removing the ‘obvious’ part of the equation.
What the other officials thought is utterly irrelevant as they would have zero credibility in coming into that decision.

What Miley is being incredibly obstinate, and wrong, about is that even with the ‘obvious’ part of the equation being removed he would still issue a red.
 
If you mean me, rest assured nothing you type will ever have any bearing on my recognition of foul play or my appropriate sanction.
You can make excuses for covering defenders all you like in your game, in mine, I will focus on an attacker who has been, imo. Denied a clear chance to score
Red all day for me in this clip and nothing will change my view on that, so save yourself the typing and focus on something else
 
Not to overdo my agreement with Padfoot, but I think we're having two separate discussions in this thread, which are being deliberately conflated by some posters to create a false "grey area".

Was the video in the OP DOGSO? For me, yes - but I think the consensus is that there's an argument either way on this specific example. Can we perhaps leave this specific example there?
 
GraemeS said:
Not to overdo my agreement with Padfoot, but I think we're having two separate discussions in this thread, which are being deliberately conflated by some posters to create a false "grey area".

Was the video in the OP DOGSO? For me, yes - but I think the consensus is that there's an argument either way on this specific example. Can we perhaps leave this specific example there?
Click to expand...

To a degree I agree with that....however what happened in that instance is a fairly classic case of referee tunnel vision.
Where the official is so focused on the foul challenge, and the potential DOGSO, they narrow their field of vision and miss the covering defender along with their potential for removing the vital ‘obvious’ part of the equation.

What it seems like Miley is advocating is to disregard the covering defender completely and sanction for DOGSO even if it isn’t. That is not only incorrect in law it’s tantamount to cheating which is an awful thing for a referee to promote.
 
Padfoot said:
To a degree I agree with that....however what happened in that instance is a fairly classic case of referee tunnel vision.
Where the official is so focused on the foul challenge, and the potential DOGSO, they narrow their field of vision and miss the covering defender along with their potential for removing the vital ‘obvious’ part of the equation.

What it seems like Miley is advocating is to disregard the covering defender completely and sanction for DOGSO even if it isn’t. That is not only incorrect in law it’s tantamount to cheating which is an awful thing for a referee to promote.
Click to expand...


Ok seeing as intelligent reasoning seems vacant from certain light sabre clad persons, without doubt covering defender gets its share of the vote in dogso
Just for me, not in the clip in question.
Covering defender for me is usuallly going to be head on, not side on, and not a question of if and but of the defender getting there, I see you have ignored my two photo examples of taking a snap shot at the scene of the crime, then weighing it up againgst what happens when we look at the covering defenders a second later
No referee in the planet would surely doubt the red in my screen shot, but my point is, to use your basis of excuses of covering defenders, indeed, three such pawns appear in the next scene, making the incident, if based on covering defenders, to be barely a yellow
Every foul, offside that you give, you are taking snap shots on your head, frame by frame. How you choose to interpret those frames is what makes you the refereee that you are.
And as for any suggestion of cheating, well, how did your games go yesterday?
Trying to preach your view of incidents when by all accounts you are not an active referee kind of tarnishes your opinion other than by watching paint by numbers incidents on tv. You dont need to be a good, or indeed qualified official to sit in the armchair having your rant.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Ok seeing as intelligent reasoning seems vacant from certain light sabre clad persons, without doubt covering defender gets its share of the vote in dogso
Just for me, not in the clip in question.
Covering defender for me is usuallly going to be head on, not side on, and not a question of if and but of the defender getting there, I see you have ignored my two photo examples of taking a snap shot at the scene of the crime, then weighing it up againgst what happens when we look at the covering defenders a second later
No referee in the planet would surely doubt the red in my screen shot, but my point is, to use your basis of excuses of covering defenders, indeed, three such pawns appear in the next scene, making the incident, if based on covering defenders, to be barely a yellow
Every foul, offside that you give, you are taking snap shots on your head, frame by frame. How you choose to interpret those frames is what makes you the refereee that you are.
And as for any suggestion of cheating, well, how did your games go yesterday?
Trying to preach your view of incidents when by all accounts you are not an active referee kind of tarnishes your opinion other than by watching paint by numbers incidents on tv. You dont need to be a good, or indeed qualified official to sit in the armchair having your rant.
Click to expand...

Your 2 screenshots are utterly irrelevant as they do not relate to the incident being discussed and are just props to try and shore up your weak premise.
Indeed if you watch a video of the Arsenal incident you would see that Mavropanis clears the ball but it’s blocked by the attackers foot, rebounding towards goal at some speed....so not under control by any stretch of the imagination.....plus the covering defender has a good angle to intercept....all contributing to removing the ‘obvious’ from the equation.

Nice try to attempt to deflect from your advocation of dleiberately applying an unwarranted sanction by attempting to attack me rather than the argument.
You have no idea of how active I am. Don’t assume that because I choose not to dissect my games on here that I am not out there most weekends.
I’ve been that inactive this season that my cup final middle this afternoon was given to me out of sympathy rather than hard work and consistency. :cool:
 
Padfoot said:
Your 2 screenshots are utterly irrelevant as they do not relate to the incident being discussed and are just props to try and shore up your weak premise.
Indeed if you watch a video of the Arsenal incident you would see that Mavropanis clears the ball but it’s blocked by the attackers foot, rebounding towards goal at some speed....so not under control by any stretch of the imagination.....plus the covering defender has a good angle to intercept....all contributing to removing the ‘obvious’ from the equation.

Nice try to attempt to deflect from your advocation of dleiberately applying an unwarranted sanction by attempting to attack me rather than the argument.
You have no idea of how active I am. Don’t assume that because I choose not to dissect my games on here that I am not out there most weekends.
I’ve been that inactive this season that my cup final middle this afternoon was given to me out of sympathy rather than hard work and consistency. :cool:
Click to expand...



They are excellent examples of DOGSO with regard to covering defenders.
No attack on you, you manage to inflict enough damage on yourself with your own ignorance, far less add anything from me
Enjoy your cup final, if Mr Moss can be appointed to the FA cup final then I guess anybody who once accidently visited the FA website can get a final too.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
They are excellent examples of DOGSO with regard to covering defenders.
No attack on you, you manage to inflict enough damage on yourself with your own ignorance, far less add anything from me
Enjoy your cup final, if Mr Moss can be appointed to the FA cup final then I guess anybody who once accidently visited the FA website can get a final too.
Click to expand...

Yet more personal attacks......

Got nothing else?
 
You implied in some way I was cheating, only a bully would do that and not expect a reply.
I think that says enough

You trying to get this post closed, because rightly, thats where its going

Question my judgement , thats fine but to suggest any form of cheating? i wont justify either my success or input to the referering world to you, or indeed any online alias. Dont start a personal attack unless you are willing to get it returned.
 
Padfoot said:
there was another defender in a position where they had a possibility of intercepting the attacker,
Click to expand...
Agree with this

Padfoot said:
thus removing the ‘obvious’ part of the equation.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this.

For me the possibility of the defender intercepting are small enough not to remove the obviousness.

If we were to rely on small possibilities then even even if the defender wasn't there there is a possibility the attacker would trip on his own foot and not gain control of the ball so it won't be obvious.
 
This thread is prime example why I have had enough of this forum. Used to be a good source of useful information and advice, but more often than not is drowned out by the usual attempts of point scoring and oneupmanship, "reached a higher level than you, so therefore your views are irrelevant blah blah blah" :wall::redcard:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top