The Ref Stop

Mexico vs South Africa

First is clearly correct. The defender has the responsibility to not make contact with the attacker.

Second is VC. Appreciate there’s not a huge amount of force in it but we can’t be having players whacking each other in the head.

Third is DOGSO. A yellow is probably supportable but red is more correct for me. The defenders are all beat and the only consideration that’s borderline is direction and that’s only because he tried to dodge the player about to foul him.
 
The Ref Stop
RustyRef said:
I personally think the ball would have been much further forward, probably closer to the next line in the grass, before he got the shot away. But again this is why I said I'm OK with the decision and happy that VAR stayed out of it, it is very subjective.
Click to expand...
It really wouldn't have been though - by the time he's looked up it's maybe a couple of feet further, a yard at most.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/cx2dyr3e1zro - 7:50 on the BBC highlights here btw.
 
deusex said:
Direction of travel was in perfect line with the pitch. He is 100% in on goal.
His next touch he is 1 on 1 at an angle. This is DOGSO.

View attachment 8730
Click to expand...

And as stated the free teammate is now part of the consideration. My initial instinct is yellow because refs usually play it safe. But this should be red everyday. It was incredibly cynical.
 
First one, correct.

Second, correct, at the lower levels it would probably baffle players but by the LOTG, I would say it's correct.

Third one, also correct but could support a caution as well. I'm leaning more towards red though.
 
1. DOGSO - textbook
2. Not sure what he was doing… Not sure if I would go VC, looks more reckless to violent to me.
3. I did feel that the last one was DOGSO worthy. Doesn’t matter if it’s a difficult goal scoring opportunity. He has the potential for a challenging shot or cross and tap in.

And in the spirit of the game - I despise those fouls, they’re dirty and ‘cheaty’.
 
Wolf_Ref said:
1. DOGSO - textbook
2. Not sure what he was doing… Not sure if I would go VC, looks more reckless to violent to me.
3. I did feel that the last one was DOGSO worthy. Doesn’t matter if it’s a difficult goal scoring opportunity. He has the potential for a challenging shot or cross and tap in.

And in the spirit of the game - I despise those fouls, they’re dirty and ‘cheaty’.
Click to expand...
Not sure you can support a yellow for 2. It’s a deliberate strike with the hand/arm to the head/neck so I feel you’re kinda forced into nothing (‘negligible force’) or red for anything else.
 
Ori said:
Number of defenders was always a criteria for DOGSO. Where are the new laws/guidelines on DOGSO.
Click to expand...
In reality, we should always have included the number of ‘active’ attackers in our DOGSO thinking, the new laws just formalise this. Because, fundamentally, we just have one initial decision to make … is it an obvious goal scoring opportunity? The various considerations (they are NOT criteria) are just that, things that we have to consider in order to help us reach our conclusion. It’s perfectly possible for one of the considerations to be ‘not met’ and for it still to be an obvious goal scoring opportunity overall.

On this specific incident, whilst I lean towards red as the best outcome (especially given the skill levels involved) I think VAR would leave it alone regardless of the on field decision. It does, however, expose an ‘uncertainty’ in our DOGSO approach, which is at what point a one on one shot ceases to be an OGSO because of the tightness of the angle .. 🤔
 
BBC website is asking for thumbs up or down on the last red card, it's a pretty even split at the moment. So looks like it really isn't clear cut, and either could be supported.
 
Johnson said:
Not sure you can support a yellow for 2. It’s a deliberate strike with the hand/arm to the head/neck so I feel you’re kinda forced into nothing (‘negligible force’) or red for anything else.
Click to expand...
From my opinion (only briefly looked at the video as I was attempting to multitask) it seems like clumsy control of the body trying to grapple in front. Just didn’t see a deliberate punch/hit. However, players know they run the risk around the head.
 
ARF said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good point regarding the other attacker - and a recent change to IFAB’s considerations of DOGSO. With a fellow attacker immediately to the left, had the fouled attacker not been fouled not only was he in a one on one situation but also had an option to square the ball for a tap in (Had the keeper advanced) For me, this was a nailed on Red.
 
Russell Jones said:
In reality, we should always have included the number of ‘active’ attackers in our DOGSO thinking, the new laws just formalise this. Because, fundamentally, we just have one initial decision to make … is it an obvious goal scoring opportunity? The various considerations (they are NOT criteria) are just that, things that we have to consider in order to help us reach our conclusion. It’s perfectly possible for one of the considerations to be ‘not met’ and for it still to be an obvious goal scoring opportunity overall.

On this specific incident, whilst I lean towards red as the best outcome (especially given the skill levels involved) I think VAR would leave it alone regardless of the on field decision. It does, however, expose an ‘uncertainty’ in our DOGSO approach, which is at what point a one on one shot ceases to be an OGSO because of the tightness of the angle .. 🤔
Click to expand...
Considerations.... indeedeedoodee
We've long since discussed the problem with the words in the acronym OGSO, particularly the two OO's
It was a Opportunity to score a Goal and that was Obvious
Anyway, I haven't read through all the comment s above, but I generally think the bar is too high for DOGSO and Referees have been brainwashed into ticking all the consideration boxes before reaching for the back pocket
This was a typically 'professional and cynical FT and the defender wrongly expected to 'get away with it'. I thought 'fair play' to the Ref. It's the 'right' decision for me and if we all showed his level of bravery, the players might think twice in future and we as Referees might actually win a battle for once

I thought the SFP red was a poor decision. However, my favourite Referee backed the decision, so I went back in by box
Christina, will you marry me!? xxx 😻
 
deusex said:
Direction of travel was in perfect line with the pitch. He is 100% in on goal.
His next touch he is 1 on 1 at an angle. This is DOGSO.

View attachment 8730
Click to expand...
Next touch if he is half decent and their players at the world cup he is straightening that angle up, getting the goal big and its a very clear goal scoring opportunity, a big chance with a high XG, and further opportunity to play a team mate in. It still a big chance if your an average player. This is a red and DOGSO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top