Mexico vs South Africa
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
I think a caution is probably a better outcome and nobody would be overly surprised, but I think it ticks enough boxes that dogso can’t be called a clear error.
I also doubt the ref goes red if he hadn’t already sent 2 opposition players off (although I may be wrong… only he will know) but it could be argued that it provides a bit of balance
I also doubt the ref goes red if he hadn’t already sent 2 opposition players off (although I may be wrong… only he will know) but it could be argued that it provides a bit of balance
Really? Direction of play met? No cover?
Can’t see it as SFP either, but that’s not what was given anyway.
Sorry, but it either is DOGSO or isn’t DOGSO. If one of the criteria isn’t met then it isn’t DOGSO.
I personally don't think it was DOGSO, but I can see why he gave it. Without the foul he is getting a shot away, albeit from a fairly tight angle, and for that reason I don't think VAR can get involved.
Although VAR did get involved for the potential VC and I didn't think that was a clear and obvious error by the referee.
Although VAR did get involved for the potential VC and I didn't think that was a clear and obvious error by the referee.
The first red was obviously stonewall. I think the second was supportable but not C&O and VAR shouldn't have been getting involved, and the 3rd was wrong imo but not a C&O again.
Pierluigi Collina was at the game so it will be interesting to see whether Sampaio now gets any more games (and if so, whether they are good games).
Pierluigi Collina was at the game so it will be interesting to see whether Sampaio now gets any more games (and if so, whether they are good games).
Not sure what was going on with the second red card?
Mexican player put himself there and the SA action to move past him most certainly is not VC.
Hope glancing hands to the face isn't the low bar for VC this world cup otherwise every match someone is going to be sent off
Mexican player put himself there and the SA action to move past him most certainly is not VC.
Hope glancing hands to the face isn't the low bar for VC this world cup otherwise every match someone is going to be sent off
Well surely that is DOGSO then? That second DOGSO is exactly what the rule is there for surely because it was poor lazy defending and deliberately trips his opponent to prevent a shot on goal.
It's the first DOGSO I got more of an issue with, the attacker too me instigates any contact and whilst I understand the pundits saying the defender should slow down, he should still be aloud to defend, he did not pull or push the attacker and the attacker knew what he was doing.
As much as people may say the second red was either 'soft' or not a red, by the LotG it's violent conduct, as the contact to the head with the arm is definitely deliberate, is more than negligible force, and isn't a challenge for the ball. Difficult to judge it from the referee's side of it, but the opposite angle is damning, and VAR is always going to pick those kind of ones up.
No, because DOGSO has far more considerations than whether the attacker would have got a shot away. It probably ticks most of them, but moving directly towards goal would be the argument, he was going wide and the shot would have been from a very tight angle. As I said though, I have no issue with the decision and am happy VAR stayed out of it, I just personally don't think it was DOGSO.
For the first one, whether you like it or not the defender has a responsibility to not make contact. I didn't see any obvious movement by the attacker to initiate the contact, and indeed why would he do that when clean through on goal, yes he cut across the defender but there is nothing to say he can't do that. I don't think you will find many referees saying that wasn't DOGSO and of the three red cards in the game that is the one getting the least amount of interest as it was so blatant.
I agree the angle may of been getting tighter but it's still an obvious goal scoring opportunity imo, there was no covering defenders and if he was not tripped he would of had a certain shot on goal with just the keeper to beat.
Of course but the defender even put his arms up in an attempt not to touch him, as an attacker if I knew the defender was behind me and I was staring down at goal then I probably would prefer to try and get the defender sent off instead of shooting, it's a bigger advantage than potentially missing. Of course in the laws it's a certain red but the defender did not do anything cynically to prevent a goal, there was some slight contact and the attacker understandably went down knowing it would be a certain red.
Without the foul the attacker would've had a free shot at goal from pretty much this exact position, and also had a teammate dead centre to square it to.
And that is where it is subjective, you think it is clear DOGSO, I don't. But that backs up the decision for VAR to not get involved, it was subjective.
Understand what you are saying about the first DOGSO but he fouled him, he probably didn't mean to but he did and in doing so he denied an OGSO.