OK, quit it now or you are having a rest under the fan based nonsense warning. Once that button is pressed it automatically bans, we have no discretion on it, and my finger is hovering over it.
Newcastle v Liverpool
- Thread starter Ryanj91
- Start date
Are you really a ref and think that image proves not dogso?
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
Nothing to do with fan based nonsense I would like to talk to a admin who is allowing these response.
Are you sure it's not "fan based nonsense" because on another thread you stated that you were a liverpool fan?
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
So I can’t be honest about a decision jesus this is getting ridiculous I would say the same thing if United , Chelsea , Luton because it’s what my honest view from the angles I’ve seen is you don’t have to like it but to be the one threatened with a ban after some of the replies has got my back up I will admit.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
In all seriousness, if you are a referee and you don’t understand why this was DOGSO-R you need help - training, videos, re-read the LotG, talk with other referees you work with, ask your RDO or equivalent.
This isn’t a maybe decision. All four considerations are nailed on. It really is crystal clear. And I have Virgil’s shirt hanging in my bedroom window.
I didn't have you down as the 'kiss and tell' type
one
RefChat Addict
Did he leave wearing the wrong shirt?
one
RefChat Addict
Think about where both liverpool goals were scored from. Now think about the same shot for this scenario and if there is any remote possibility any defender can get to it before the shot.
The defender on the left has to travel 15 yards to the attacker's 5 yards.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Take another look at the image posted by @cwyeary - that's an absolutely nailed on DOGSO.
As far as I'm aware, the only question in anyone's mind that saw it in real time, was whether it was actually a foul or not, because on first viewing it wasn't obvious. But once the replays established that it was a foul, the question of it being DOGSO really wasn't in any doubt.
You're literally the only person on here that doesn't see this as a clear and unequivocal DOGSO offence.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
You are Jamie Carragher and I claim my £10!!
Hands up to being a Liverpool fan, and think VVD was a red card, needed a few angles, but they showed one on MOTD that he clearly took the player before the ball, so a careless tackle and DOGSO, I think the thing that annoyed fans on the day, (and mindful this is not a fans forum but to discuss refereeing) is the lack of consistency as Gordan kicked the ball away minute after TAA and received no punishment. Brookes was also the ref that didn’t award a red last year for Mings high boot on Gakpo last season, so not defending Liverpool players reaction after the red, but I think that was the background context as well.
However, it’s such a hard job applying the LOTG at a fast placed level they are working at, and I know if I did it atm, it would be an absolute car-crash of refereeing decisions!
This is a really good point - Isak takes another touch and he's in the exact mirror position of where Nunez was for both his goals. Yes they were both ~0.3xG chances, but the fact that someone else in the exact same game put away 2 very similar chances means I don't see how on earth it wouldn't be DOGSO.
I can understand concerns about it being a foul - I was convinced it wasn't from the side-on view Sky showed about 3 or 4 times, before they eventually switch to showing a view from face-on where it does look a lot more like he want through Isak's leg to get the ball. But once you decide this is a foul, it's 100% textbook DOGSO.
Yeah, I saw a video of the ~3 minutes between the missed Gordon foul that resulted in TAA's booking and the challenge they wanted a second yellow for, and as well as that Gordon kicking the ball away, Joelinton (I think) also moves himself in front of a Liverpool FK to stop it being taken quickly, all in that little spell. Like I said upthread, if you're going to set the bar low with the TAA yellow, it's particularly frustrating to see that almost immediately forgotten.
And the other thing that came from that clip is that I thought we were supposed to be automatically cautioning players who ask for a caution, as we saw when a number of players including MacAllister were booked in GW1? In which case, Brooks again missed a number of Newcastle cautions when TAA fouled Gordon and a number of players and bench occupants went crazy appealing for the second yellow. Including the captain Trippier who would therefore have potentially seen a second yellow himself when he went on to get booked in the second half. And I've also seen a photo of Joelinton (again!) waving an imaginary card to ask for the VVD sending off.
That's always the problem with directives like this - performatively enforced for the first week, or for the first offence in a game, and then functionally ignored afterwards. In isolation, I have no real problem with TAA being booked there, and with Nunez again for the same in the second half if we're setting a standard to crack down on that. But fans can have no faith in this kind of thing when it's applied selectively or unfairly, as was the case in this game.
Last edited:
Spot on analysis. I know the old boring rant of 'all we want is consistency' is really tiresome, but think this was the case on Sunday. If you set your stall out by booking TAA then that needs to be continued throughout the rest of the game.
The xG is irrelevant - it's denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, not an obvious goal
The only minute question that can't be answered via the still is likelihood to regain control of the ball.
The closest other player is around 3-4 yards away (guesstimating the lines cut into grass are c.2yds each) and behind the ball so it's a stretch to say he has much of chance of getting anywhere near.
Having seen the video, the most likely outcome is that Isak regains control of the ball. The weight of the pass, his current movement, whilst not having yet touched the ball he is in control of it, he has judged the pace of the pass and is clearly allowing the ball to run into his path to get a clear shot at goal.
The closest other player is around 3-4 yards away (guesstimating the lines cut into grass are c.2yds each) and behind the ball so it's a stretch to say he has much of chance of getting anywhere near.
Having seen the video, the most likely outcome is that Isak regains control of the ball. The weight of the pass, his current movement, whilst not having yet touched the ball he is in control of it, he has judged the pace of the pass and is clearly allowing the ball to run into his path to get a clear shot at goal.
I'm not xG's biggest fan as a stat, but by definition, it defines how good (aka how obvious) an opportunity is. The referee in the moment obviously cannot calculate xG, but I don't think it's unfair to use it as a tool post-game as part of analysing how good an opportunity is.