Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
It might be a missed penalty, but there's no way on earth it would have been a red card.That's a clear missed penalty and DOGSO-Red.
Care to explain?It might be a missed penalty, but there's no way on earth it would have been a red card.
And I think he knows that - hence he didn’t really complain much or make much of it.In my opinion - and from my armchair - I don’t think he is getting his head on that even without the pull.
Because the referee would need to have a certainty that he would be getting onto the end of the cross.Care to explain?
This is how close he got while being pulled back. It's an obvious goalscoring opportunity for me.Because the referee would need to have a certainty that he would be getting onto the end of the cross.
I can't remember any occasions of DOGSO where it has been a cross in and a player who might have got onto the end of it being fouled.

I understand the argument, but I can’t think of a single example from a professional game in which a foul before a potential header was called as DOGSO. Based on that, I don’t think DOGSO is the expected call (assuming it is a foul). (I don’t really have an opinion on whether it is a foul as I’ve only seen still shots, which can’t prove anything—I was amused by a media take that it doesn’t look like he is slowed down by the pull at full speed, but you can tell he was at 1/4 speed. Exactly the kind of thing slow mom is NOT supposed to be used for by a VAR. My gut is that a VAR would not have sent down either way, call or no call on the PK.)This is how close he got while being pulled back. It's an obvious goalscoring opportunity for me.
View attachment 8912