RefSix

Newcastle v Southampton

lincs22

Supply League Observer
Staff member
Observer/Tutor
#62
I suspect that the SG 1 will be discussing at their next meeting.

What you should consider is "what would have happened if the defender had not made the challenge?"

While it is in his own half, the foul is a deliberate take-out and should have been a RC - whether a DOGSO or SFP is a debate. I would have gone YC is that Ben slight contact, but SOTON player action means he is doing this to deny the goalscoring opportunity, so by his own actions he had decided that it is a DOGSO.
 
#63
nowhere have I said you do

a> 0
b>0
c>25%
d>100%

so 125 out of 400.

even being generous, and making c 50....or adding 25% to b.....its still less than half
That's a wildly inaccurate assessment as far as I'm concerned. There's virtually no such thing as a 0% for distance - unless perhaps it's the entire length of the pitch away.

The direction of play factor is 100% met - the overall direction is towards the opponent's goal.

Likelihood of retaining possession is probably 95% or more - unless he trips over his own feet he's going to get to that ball - who else do you see that has any chance of reaching it before him?

So even if giving percentages is a valid way of assessing this (and I'm not sure it is), I'd say it's more like:

a) 25%
b) 100%
c) 95%
d) 100%
 
Last edited:

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#64
That's a wildly inaccurate assessment as far as I'm concerned. There's virtually no such thing as a 0% for distance - unless perhaps it's the entire length of the pitch away.

The direction of play factor is 100% met - the overall direction is towards the opponent's goal.

Likelihood of retaining possession is probably 95% or more - unless he trips over his own feet he's going to get to that ball - who else do you see that has any chance of reaching it before him?

So even if giving percentages is a valid way of assessing this, I'd say it's more like:

a) 25%
b) 100%
c) 95%
d) 100%

Your allowed your version. Am allowed mine.
Not dogso on a game am on
Yes sfp
 
#65
For comparison purposes, here's the aforementioned Fulham vs Middlesbrough DOGSO red card. The incident starts around the 1m56s mark.


For what it's worth, I think this is an even more debatable red - there's no second attacker and Rhodes is not sprinting past the defender the same way the Newcastle player was.
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#66
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.
DOGSO for me. The clock on these screenshots is a good indicator of speed of the ball as well. Look where the challenge is made and where the ball is 2 seconds later. There’s no pace so it’s not reaching the 18 yard box, and it’s going nowhere near the corner flags. He’s in on goal, no doubt about it
 

Attachments

one

RefChat Addict
#67
Overwhelming presence of some considerations can make up for limited presence of others.

If one thinks this distance means no DOGSO then to make the point, take the keeper out of his goal and put him in the opponent PA. You have two attackers with the ball sprinting towards an empty goal with defenders 10 yards behind. Distance still the same.
Now you can't tell me that would not be an 'obvious' GS 'opportunity' .
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#68
For comparison purposes, here's the aforementioned Fulham vs Middlesbrough DOGSO red card. The incident starts around the 1m56s mark.


For what it's worth, I think this is an even more debatable red - there's no second attacker and Rhodes is not sprinting past the defender the same way the Newcastle player was.
Wasn't it subsequently confirmed that this was for SFP rather than DOGSO? In this one the defender has gone in with studs showing and it is much easier to say SFP for that than it is for Ward-Prowse's body check.
 
#69
For me, I'd say the criteria are more of a yes/no/maybe proposition. So in this case:

Was the player too far from the opponent's goal for an OGSO? Maybe.
Was the overall direction of play towards the opponent's goal? Yes.
Was the player likely to retain control of the ball? Yes.
Were there other defenders in a position to prevent the OGSO? No.

So for me it's 3 criteria fully met and one debatable.
 
#70
Wasn't it subsequently confirmed that this was for SFP rather than DOGSO? In this one the defender has gone in with studs showing and it is much easier to say SFP for that than it is for Ward-Prowse's body check.
No, as far as I recall, all reports gave it as DOGSO. I seem to remember it was discussed on here at the time and the discussion centered on whether the DOGSO decision that was given, was correct.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#71
DOGSO for me. The clock on these screenshots is a good indicator of speed of the ball as well. Look where the challenge is made and where the ball is 2 seconds later. There’s no pace so it’s not reaching the 18 yard box, and it’s going nowhere near the corner flags. He’s in on goal, no doubt about it

Maybe I should type in capitals, but I wont
Nowhere have I said its going near the corner flags, what I have said and i cant see anything to dispute it, is, the ball is going as close to the corner flags as it is the goal
the pics you post merely back that up

that ball is running to the 18 yard line. neither on goal nor the flag, but equidistant between the two.
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#72
Maybe I should type in capitals, but I wont
Nowhere have I said its going near the corner flags, what I have said and i cant see anything to dispute it, is, the ball is going as close to the corner flags as it is the goal
the pics you post merely back that up

that ball is running to the 18 yard line. neither on goal nor the flag, but equidistant between the two.
OK, that’s fine and I’d agree with your argument had the ball been further down the FOP but with how far out the player would be with the ball, one touch and the direction is changed and he’s in on goal.
 
#73
Maybe I should type in capitals, but I wont
Nowhere have I said its going near the corner flags, what I have said and i cant see anything to dispute it, is, the ball is going as close to the corner flags as it is the goal
the pics you post merely back that up

that ball is running to the 18 yard line. neither on goal nor the flag, but equidistant between the two.
The ball is not going anywhere near the 18 yard line, at least not under its own power. Anyway, it's not about deciding what direction the ball is travelling, it's about making a reasoned judgement on what would have happened if the offence has not occurred. If the player had not been fouled, he would almost certainly have caught up with the ball a few yards inside the opponent's half. At which point he would have been free and clear of all defenders, heading in on goal with a team mate alongside him. The direction the ball was traveling as he knocked it past the defender and sprinted past that defender to take possession of it again, is irrelevant.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#74
Everything I read is based on what could have happened, might have happened, touch here, sprint here
The attackers possibly going to pull a hammy!
Its picture book in our head to invent a perfect run in on goal, a perfect touch etc
Its not obvious

The mere fact some posts are long winded only prove thus.

Obvious. The clue is in the word itself.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#76
My sanity has been saved by sound reasoning for dogso offered by most other contribitors
Ciley, i know this is just your disdain of all things b&w. Your posts have nonetheless been entertaining
Rusty, i'm sure you'd have been supporting red if AT hadn't choked on that card
Forget guidelines, core and RA meets, if this isn't a dismissal, the acronym dogso needs changing. Refs sometimes need to park the classroom and drive the real world. Common sense lays the roads
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#77
I said on my first post I would dismiss for SFP

The OP referred to dogso, which I dispute.

So, he is still gping off in my game, Making any dislike of the shirt void.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#80
Rusty, i'm sure you'd have been supporting red if AT hadn't choked on that card
No, I wouldn't have been as I still don't think it is obvious enough. As I've said, if it had been Almiron who was through on goal on his own I would be supporting red, but people are pointing at it being a two on one and that means there is an additional pass needed and, in my opinion, that removes or certainly limits the obviousness of it. If people think that Almiron had an obvious DOGSO without needing the presence of Rondon then I completely accept that, but for me he is too wide with too far to go.

Unfortunately we will probably never get to find out what the observer panel think about it, but one of FIFA's elite referees thought it wasn't obvious. Doesn't mean he was necessarily right of course.
 
Top