A&H

Newcastle v Southampton

I can be impartial, because if anything, the incident spurned the home team into action
But anyone claiming that isn't an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been brainwashed by secret handshakes and teachings. SG1, SG2, observers blah blah, that should have been a red card because i fancy i would have kicked myself, if left in that position (two on one with the goalkeeper) I couldn't muster an OGSO
Get a grip
 
The Referee Store
The following must be considered:
  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders


a> 70 yards from goal
b> wide
c> possible, debatable, there is a chance.
d> the only one of the 4 criteria that is stonewall

nowhere near a red card. (for DOGSO)
 
Ciley Myrus said:
The following must be considered:
  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders


a> 70 yards from goal
b> wide
c> possible, debatable, there is a chance.
d> the only one of the 4 criteria that is stonewall

nowhere near a red card. (for DOGSO)
Click to expand...
Ciley, although we agree on most things, it's always been the case that your EPL interests extend as far as loathing the Mags. So I can't take your assessment at face value on this occasion
 
Last edited:
When all is said and done, I don't really care who is an observer and who is a level whatever ref, only a referee who has been brainwashed by teachings (by people who don't really get football) can manufacture an argument against DOGSO
AT looked quite ill in the aftermath of the decision. I've stated many times that i rate him, but this one caught him by surprise because of the distance from goal. A dreadful precedent in terms of secret interpretations
 
Big Cat said:
Ciley, although we agree on most things, it's always been the case that your EPL interests extend as far as loathing the Mags. So I can't take your assessment at face value
Click to expand...


Apart from my years as a ST holder at OT you might be right!!
that said, put any teams colours on here and the assessment is from the good book. The ball is as close to the tech area as it is the centre circle. Split the park into thirds and its in the wide third. Its 70 yards from goal. he might get the ball.
that's the first 3 criteria unfullfilled

leaving only the last one as a sure fire.

not DOGSO
 
Big Cat said:
Two on one with the GK at EPL level = more than a DODGSO for goodness sake
Click to expand...

quote me that requirement and I side with ya!!
Its not there. We might like it to be. The book has 4 criteria for us to consider.
This incident meets 1 of them

"number of attackers who might get involved in the play". Has not been taught, (to my knowledge), and, its certainly not written down anywhere
 
Ciley Myrus said:
The following must be considered:
  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders


a> 70 yards from goal
b> wide
c> possible, debatable, there is a chance.
d> the only one of the 4 criteria that is stonewall

nowhere near a red card. (for DOGSO)
Click to expand...

A = far away, but no defenders near, has an open run towards goal with another striker.

B = towards goal

C = 100% it was hardly out of reach if he wasn't floored. Remember he was sprinting, not standing still twiddling his thumbs.

D = we agree
 
I think there are occasions, like this; when referees can learn from the bottom up. Honestly, I think this is a DOGSO in Sunday League Div 4, because i'd expect any standard of football to turn this into an OGSO, let alone EPL
So our misunderstanding is indeed based on secret teachings
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Am sure its not how you meant to say it but that is entirely incorrect. Are you saying CR7 or Messi having the ball makes a difference to it being, Carlton Palmer? (insert more relevant notorious duff player where apt)
You are judging the offence. Not the ability.
By your merits am not sending off for DOGSO cos the ball is landing at someone who aint scored for 3 seasons?

Not part of the equation.

I half get the level thought process but in reverse, at grass roots, who is to say the attacker is not Commonwealth games sprint ability?

Its not for us to judge that.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely fair for us to judge that. Are you going to tell me that the level of the game you are officiating doesn't impact how you call fouls or whether you apply advantage or not?

This is the exact same type of situation. What I give as advantage in a higher-level game is going to be at a different level than what I give advantage for in a younger game or a lesser-skilled game. DOGSO is the same situation.

I never once said my judgment of DOGSO depends on the player.
 
I shall retire with 3 points in the bag, flabbergasted that senior refs, observers and I (the footballing community exc. referees) are on a different planet
I can live with it
Just about
 
Big Cat said:
I think there are occasions, like this; when referees can learn from the bottom up. Honestly, I think this is a DOGSO in Sunday League Div 4, because i'd expect any standard of football to turn this into an OGSO, let alone EPL
So our misunderstanding is indeed based on secret teachings
Click to expand...

Using that logic, there'd be 5 times as many red cards in general.

The offence is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not stopping one developing.

Not a DOGSO for me.
 
Ryanj91 said:
A = far away, but no defenders near, has an open run towards goal with another striker.

B = towards goal

C = 100% it was hardly out of reach if he wasn't floored. Remember he was sprinting, not standing still twiddling his thumbs.

D = we agree
Click to expand...


A> you are mixing up A and D, its 2 separate considerations.
B>The ball is as close to the dug out as it is the centre circle. Not towards goal at all. Its headed (if it rolled all the way) to the 18 yard line
C> its possible. 50/50. folk seem to be omitting that the ball was still moving away, its not like the ball stopped still.
D> the only one its sure fire.

so, at a push 1 and a half out of 4. Not enough.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
To be a Clear Obvious Goal scoring opportunity one of the main requirements is, control of the ball.......
Click to expand...
Or likelihood of regaining posession which is almost certain if he isn't fouled.

For me this should have been red.. There is a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity. 2 players breaking on 1 and the 1 had been caught on his heels. If he doesn't foul him we have a player who is very likely to regain control of the ball and be in 2 v GK.

Whilst I wouldn't take individual players into consideration I would consider the level of the game. The lower down the less obvious a chance this is.. At the elite level of the PL I am hard pressed to call this anything other than a goal scoring opportunity.

I recall a similar scenario being used in FA educational material and I am certain the FA were saying it should be red.
 
RefIADad said:
It is absolutely fair for us to judge that. Are you going to tell me that the level of the game you are officiating doesn't impact how you call fouls or whether you apply advantage or not?

This is the exact same type of situation. What I give as advantage in a higher-level game is going to be at a different level than what I give advantage for in a younger game or a lesser-skilled game. DOGSO is the same situation.

I never once said my judgment of DOGSO depends on the player.
Click to expand...


Yes I accept you never said as much as depending on the player, its just how I read it, sorry
2 teams at say U14 are equal though and a foul is a foul. The LOTG don't make allowances for the age/ability and neither should we
An advantage, is either an advantage, or, its not.
A push, is a push, or its not.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Am sure its not how you meant to say it but that is entirely incorrect. Are you saying CR7 or Messi having the ball makes a difference to it being, Carlton Palmer? (insert more relevant notorious duff player where apt)
You are judging the offence. Not the ability.
By your merits am not sending off for DOGSO cos the ball is landing at someone who aint scored for 3 seasons?

Not part of the equation.

I half get the level thought process but in reverse, at grass roots, who is to say the attacker is not Commonwealth games sprint ability?

Its not for us to judge that.
Click to expand...

Disagree. If you’re judging the likelihood of getting control of the ball, of course it’s going to be a factor. It certainly won’t be a huge one, but a factor nonetheless
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Yes I accept you never said as much as depending on the player, its just how I read it, sorry
2 teams at say U14 are equal though and a foul is a foul. The LOTG don't make allowances for the age/ability and neither should we
An advantage, is either an advantage, or, its not.
A push, is a push, or its not.
Click to expand...
The laws don't change but the opinion of the referee might.
You say it often yourself, it's one thing to knoe the laws, another to know how to apply them. Taking into account the standard of football falls into that bracket imo.
 
alexgr said:
Disagree. If you’re judging the likelihood of getting control of the ball, of course it’s going to be a factor. It certainly won’t be a huge one, but a factor nonetheless
Click to expand...


And again, where does the good book tell us this?? 4 criteria. This is not one of them
 
Ciley Myrus said:
A> you are mixing up A and D, its 2 separate considerations.
B>The ball is as close to the dug out as it is the centre circle. Not towards goal at all. Its headed (if it rolled all the way) to the 18 yard line
C> its possible. 50/50. folk seem to be omitting that the ball was still moving away, its not like the ball stopped still.
D> the only one its sure fire.

so, at a push 1 and a half out of 4. Not enough.
Click to expand...

It ticks all the boxes.

At that screenshot the ball has practically stopped.
The player sprinting would have regained control of the ball just inside the opposition's half.

The ball is defo going towards the goal lol. It's nowhere near the dug out lolScreenshot_20190420_204001_com.android.chrome.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top