A&H

Newcastle v Southampton

And again, where does the good book tell us this?? 4 criteria. This is not one of them

How does one ascertain likelihood? In the absence of any definition, of course we have to take into account everything we know about the players involved.

How do you determine whether something is likely?
 
The Referee Store
the ball is headed for the 18 yard line.

the goal, is 20 yards to the left.

the pic is taken not at the point of the foul, and its the position of the foul we consider. As per the more relevant screen shot I put up, at the time of the foul.
 
too much if, when, why, might, could.

Obvious goal scoring opportunity. If its Obvious, it hardly needs justifying, and that's all am reading. So, cant be that obvious
 
my last post. The point of the contact in the foul is 62 metres from the opposing goal., ( 10 metres inside the other half) using the centre circle as an indicator. The foul happens in line with the furthest most point of the circle
St James park appears to be 68m wide. The ball, at the point of the foul, is, 22? metres infield, maybe 21, maybe 23, using the centre circle dimensions and subtracting them from the total length. So the ball is in the wide third if we draw three horizontal lines down the park, nowhere near "headed for goal". Had the ball ran its natural conclusion it would have rolled as close to the corner flag as it would the goal


point 4 is the only valid criteria here.

as ever, in whoevers game tomorrow if you are sending off, great.
 
my last post. The point of the contact in the foul is 62 metres from the opposing goal., ( 10 metres inside the other half) using the centre circle as an indicator. The foul happens in line with the furthest most point of the circle
St James park appears to be 68m wide. The ball, at the point of the foul, is, 22? metres infield, maybe 21, maybe 23, using the centre circle dimensions and subtracting them from the total length. So the ball is in the wide third if we draw three horizontal lines down the park, nowhere near "headed for goal". Had the ball ran its natural conclusion it would have rolled as close to the corner flag as it would the goal


point 4 is the only valid criteria here.

as ever, in whoevers game tomorrow if you are sending off, great.

The ball would have needed some of Klopp's post-match interview wind to make it go anywhere near the corner flag.... ;);)
 
The ball would have needed some of Klopp's post-match interview wind to make it go anywhere near the corner flag.... ;);)


I said my last post but I need to answer that one. Equidistant between corner flag and goal. Nowhere have I said its going TO the corner flag. Am saying its going as close to the corner flag as it is the goal.

Also to repeat, am tempted and more than likely would have dismissed.
But for serious foul play.
 
Last edited:
First bit of sunshine and Miley goes off on one! Must be those rays affecting his usually astute judgements.... Have you declared yourself safe on facebook yet mate?? ;)
 
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

Just quoting so I can use that.

I would be going red.

A - Pretty far out, yes I agree.
B - Heading generally towards opponent's goal.
C - Very likely
D - None whatsoever.


I'll explain my reasoning for C:

If the defender doesn't take him out, the player is clean through, very likely to pick up the ball uncontested, because assuming the defender played fair and was going for this ball, he was going to have to turn, accelerate and catch up to the attacker who is just about ready to fly. The only consideration is whether the keeper would be switched on enough to come out and clear it.

D: I don't see any defenders in a position to tackle him and only one other defender in a suitable position to catch up with him, but he's likely to be having to cover the other striker. In particular, everyone else is behind him and has a lot of ground to cover just to catch up.

With those two considerations, I would say that on balance I would lean towards a red card. But I concede that this is one of those you could probably argue either way really.
 
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)
Considered is they key word.
You don’t have to be 100% on all.
 
Why was the DOGSO-R law introduced?

It was about the “professional foul” wasn’t it? A deliberate foul with no attempt to play the ball to prevent a great scoring chance. We have the laws to guide us, the four considerations to help us.

This is a “professional foul” that the DOGSO-R law is designed to prevent.

Red is easy to justify, so is yellow.

(I had a top flight futsal ref with me go red in an own half DOGSO and we are given arguably stricter DOGSO guidance in the little game. I could;))
 
Haven't read all the comments here but this is a clear red for me (with he benefit of replay).

'obvious'ness is about weighing up the chances of scoring. LOTG have given use some guidelines (considerations) on that. Not all considerations have to be satisfies for a red. I have seen red given on many occasions with the chance of scoring less than this. You repeat this 10 times and 8 if not 9 times it will be a goal if there is no foul.

Yes distance may be an issue but that is more than adiquately countered by other facts
- there is a supporting attacker with markers nowhere to be seen
- the covering defender is flat-footed and he will be at least 10 yards behind before getting to top speed.
- second defender is at least 10 yards (if not more) behind at the time of the foul.
 
Haven't read all the comments here but this is a clear red for me (with he benefit of replay).

'obvious'ness is about weighing up the chances of scoring. LOTG have given use some guidelines (considerations) on that. Not all considerations have to be satisfies for a red. I have seen red given on many occasions with the chance of scoring less than this. You repeat this 10 times and 8 if not 9 times it will be a goal if there is no foul.

Yes distance may be an issue but that is more than adiquately countered by other facts
- there is a supporting attacker with markers nowhere to be seen
- the covering defender is flat-footed and he will be at least 10 yards behind before getting to top speed.
- second defender is at least 10 yards (if not more) behind at the time of the foul.
And at least 9/10 times will result in a scoring opportunity😉
 
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)
It's not an indisputable red card but you can't say it's nowhere near, either. I think that apart from anything else, the number of qualified referees on this thread opting for red, shows that is definitely within the realms of possibility.

The law says you have to consider the distance from goal. It doesn't say that any particular distance is too far - it's just one of the things the referee has to take into account. 69 yards (according to the MotD graphic) with not a single outfield defender in the way and not one, but two forwards haring in on goal unopposed, is not too far for DOGSO to be at least a possibility, once all the circumstances are taken into account.

The general direction of the play is definitely towards the opponent's goal. Being 'wide' is not a disqualifying condition (and it's not even really that wide anyway). The player is just slightly to the right of the centre circle. Remember that since 2017 it is only required that the "overall movement is towards the offender’s goal" - the player and/or ball do not have to be heading in a straight line towards the centre of the goal for the direction criterion to be met. Overall direction of play here is clearly towards the opponent's goal.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the player was going to retain possession of the ball. He has knocked it past the defender, is going past him easily and at pace with no other defender even close. There no way he's not going to catch that ball (IMHO).

I agree with you on the location and number of defenders.

So for me, the only really debatable point is the distance, the other criteria are all fulfilled as far as I'm concerned. I can see why the referee here has gone for yellow and it's obviously not a horribly incorrect decision. The distance factor does call things into question but I still think it's a debatable one.

For instance it's no further away than an incident that occurred in a game between Fulham and my team, Middlesbrough a few years ago. In that incident there was only one attacker (Jordan Rhodes) involved in the play so it would potentially only have been one on one, not a two on one with the keeper - and the referee gave a red card. There were a few questions about whether it was too far away from goal to be a true DOGSO offence but again, no-one (as far as I recall) saying it was a massive error to go with a red.
 
Back
Top