A&H

Non-DOGSO penalty, Villa Notts County

B

black_dog

Member
In last night's Villa - Notts County game, Bunn brought down McLeod with the classic clumsy foul of a keeper who's realised far too late that he's made a terrible error going for the ball, obvious penalty. Kavanagh did not call it DOGSO, presumably because McLeod would have reached the ball near the corner of the penalty area with Baker covering.
The Notts C manager reckoned it was '100% stolen' because Bunn should have been sent off. The Guardian said it was difficult to understand no DOGSO.
Would anyone give this? 0:40
 
A&H International
He looked like he went down easy, and I guess it was raining last night?

Judging by the reaction of the player who took the ball and player who was 'fouled' who didn't appeal and got straight back up and immediately went to try to win back the ball I'd say it wasn't a penatly. The camera angle isn't great. From the refs position I can see why he's thought it was a penalty and he was very quick to give it.

Certainly not a stone-waller and falls into the category of 'seen them given-seen them not given'.

Not to get splinters I'd say. Not a penalty :p
 
It looked as you called it @black_dog - attacker just gets into that space first and is then shoved over by the defender - probably given anywhere else on the pitch and not one bats an eyelid ... reactions tell a totally different story though - from both sides !
 
Definitely not DOGSO for me. I'm appalled at the amount of encroachment on the penalty though.
 
First of all, I'm a Notts County fan and was at the game.

However, I think he got the majority of decisions correct. The Villa penalty was soft but the referee had waived away a number of similar penalty shouts throughout the game and I think this one was one too many.

And not a DOGSO
 
This is a tough one for a referee to call. It's the type of incident that sees everyone associated with the aggrieved team calling for a red card, usually mentioning the mythical "last man". For me, OBVIOUS is the key consideration when making a decision here. In my opinion the attacking player never actually had full control of the ball. He did beat the keeper to the touch but knocked the ball well ahead but still had some work to chase and retrieve the ball and score. Therefore, it was not OBVIOUS that he would score and I think the referee made the correct decision.
 
The attacker doesn't need to have control of the ball - for instance, he can chip it past the keeper, or even be running onto the pass. In those cases, you need to consider what his chances are for control and if he'll have an OGSO when he gathers the ball.
For instance, take the defender out of the equation and it would have been an easy ball to control, still heading roughly towards goal, and a few yards out from the goal line so in a position where he has a clear shot on goal. He definitely would have retrieved it before it went out. So you'd have the OGSO. But the defender is close enough that there's a fair chance he'd reach the ball at around the same time, so it's not obvious that the attacker will gain control of the ball (if the defender was further back - ie only in a position to potentially block the shot, there would still be an OGSO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top