The Ref Stop

MLS Chad Marshall RC interesting VAR angles

es1 said:
I'm in the no foul camp here

there's nothing reckless, careless, excessive, etc about the challenge
Click to expand...
You don't see the studs on the calf?

Or the contact at all?

QuaverRef said:
It doesn't matter how hard it is to control, any player can make a mistake at any moment regardless of ability. If you're having to make an assumption that the player will do something correctly, that means it hasn't happened and isn't obvious. The fact that you've said that he's 'almost certain' means that there is a level of doubt.
Click to expand...
You're wrong on all counts here. You seem to be expecting that the attacker must have the ball already under control for DOGSO. This simply isn't the case.

If the foul denies an attacker taking possession, then we need to consider the likelihood of control. Here, it's extremely high. And again, you're missing the key word OPPORTUNITY.

santa sangria said:
Are you watching the same clip? The defender plays the ball, then the man. By the time of the "contact" the ball is gone. Surely you can't base a DOGSO decision on what might have happened if someone hadn't played the ball?
Click to expand...
The contact on the ball is part of the challenge that's the foul. So the attacker hasn't lost possession - he was dispossessed by a foul. This would be no different to any other DOGSO foul such as a slide tackle that goes through the ball and cleans up the player. Dispossessing the attacker as part of the foul isn't a defence against DOGSO.
 
The Ref Stop
42558994_10160928399595707_7782399101613637632_o.jpg
Straight reds should be saved for these types of challenges, TBF, Santos got there as fast as he could!!!
 
I don't think it meets the criteria for SFP.

You could argue that he endangers the safety of his opponent but I don't agree, he's used an appropriate amount of force imo.

I think it's similar to the rudiger one a few weeks back when France played Germany (I know you thought there should have been a sanction there as well, I checked!) but I just think it's a coming together from a challenge between 2 players that's resulted in contact causing an injury. I don't think either are fouls.
 
Why are you talking about sfp? I asked, in response to your comment, whether the studs on the calf are a foul.
How can it not be a foul?
 
Regardless of if this Warrents a sanction, if no foul is given the message it sends would be that it's ok to go into a challenge with an outstretched foot and studs pointing upwards.

At the very least this is acting without precaution and must be careless.
 
Grief I think you're making it something it's not.

I don't think this is a foul, I dont think there's anything careless or reckless about the way he challenges for it.

In other circumstance of course planting your studs into your opponents calf wpuld be sanctioned, that's not what happens here
 
QuaverRef said:
OK, the DOGSO thing is up for debate but no foul whatsoever? I'm struggling to agree with that
Click to expand...
Yep. I mean, I'm strongly for DOGSO, but to not see a foul at all goes to a bit more of a fundamental foul recognition issue. You can't say that coming over the ball and stamping on a calf isn't a foul. And if you are and everyone else says you're wrong, then you might need to reconsider your interpretation of what a foul is.
And helping referees do that is what this forum is for. But referees have to be willing to learn.
 
MattTheRef said:
I'm sorry but, stamp? Outstretched leg makes contact after blocking the ball, then brings the leg down in a natural movement to plant on the floor? There's no stamp here.

DOGSO is as absurd as no foul..

DFK for careless.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was supposed to be contact rather than stamp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top