Ha I've thought this for a few years (and actually don't hate it)
Mexico vs South Africa
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
A question would be what represents clear opportunity, penalties are 0.76 = scored 76%. A chance under 0.1 big or small? As XG can be assessed in a millisecond by Opta, Statsbomb etc .. This is a possibility, "the XG was 0.25 = Clear opportunity, DOGSO ..!"
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Lost in this discussion seems to be the actual\ language. It isn't direction of travel. It is "general direction of the play." IFAB changed the language a few years ago because of referees getting too focussed on a player going a bit sideways as part of the attack.
I think this is easily DOGSO.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
In the Athletic, Clattenberg addressed the sendoffs in this game. On the second DOGSO, he wrote:
In the Premier League, it’s possibly a free kick, potentially a yellow card. In most other jurisdictions, including here at the World Cup, the VAR is highly likely to step in, with a red card becoming inevitable.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
All I would say to Mr Clattenburg is that it didn’t happen in the Premier LeagueI wonder what the outcome would have been in the Gladiators arena?
Uh, he's explaining the call, not criticizing it. That may not be as clear from just the single quote--I didn't want to run afoul of copywriter rules by posting the the whole thing. His discussion is much longer. He knows that many people watch the PL, and he's explaining its a different standard there then elsewhere. (And I think he's right on the merits. I don't think a PL VAR wold be likely to step in, but the almost everywhere else, it would be expected for the VAR to recommend a review if the R did not call on the field.)
I thought the quote is a load of hypothetical nonsense to be honest. I mean when someone starts saying it's "possibly" a free kick then I worry. I mean it's a certain foul for starters and the talk that a VAR at the WC is likely to step in if the ref produced a yellow but wouldn't in the PL is basing on what exactly?
Unlike SFP where the PL clearly has a higher bar then I'm not sure how the PL interprets a DOGSO any different to any other league? It's not exactly a higher bar and I expect a PL ref to give a red in this instance and if they don't the VAR should intervene as he was through on goal with no covering defenders and would regain the ball if he wasn't fouled.
Unlike SFP where the PL clearly has a higher bar then I'm not sure how the PL interprets a DOGSO any different to any other league? It's not exactly a higher bar and I expect a PL ref to give a red in this instance and if they don't the VAR should intervene as he was through on goal with no covering defenders and would regain the ball if he wasn't fouled.
one
RefChat Addict
The problem with the English language is that when multiple adjectives and nouns are sequenced together it is not clear what belongs to what. An example I have used before, the Santana song "Black magic woman", is it a woman who does black magic, or is a magic woman who is black?
I firmly believe the word 'obvious' in DOGSO describes the goal scoring part and not the opportunity part. This puts the bar a lot higher. There are many obvious opportunities but not many are obvious goal scoring ones.
Having said that, I would have supported either card on the second DOGSO. As always those decisions in the grey area (50 50s) always generate the most debate.
I firmly believe the word 'obvious' in DOGSO describes the goal scoring part and not the opportunity part. This puts the bar a lot higher. There are many obvious opportunities but not many are obvious goal scoring ones.
Having said that, I would have supported either card on the second DOGSO. As always those decisions in the grey area (50 50s) always generate the most debate.