A&H

Opinions needed

What’s your desicion?

  • Continue

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • Red card

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Yellow card

    Votes: 10 45.5%
  • Total voters
    22
The Referee Store
Not in Control of the ball. Not certain he will regain possession with 2 other defenders also challenging for it. Not clear cut DOGSO imo.
 
Mintyref said:
And the kick to the chest is not enough for you? Really?
Click to expand...
He doesn't kick him in the chest. He actually kicks the ball first, and there is the follow through into the midrift, but some of this is partly due to the attacker rushing in on him as he attempts to clear it. This is more acting with disregard to consequence for opponent, i.e reckless, for me than excessive force.
I can accept you seeing this as red but not just on virtue of where the contact is made. If you think its excessive then SFP it is; just not for me on this one.
 
The video is inconclusive on the excessive force for me. If anything the best angle looks like the GK pulls out and there is minimal contact.

It looks like a red card but I don't think it fulfils DOGSO criteria or SFP ;) Though I'd understand either decision. The only think I know for sure is the defenders and GK have really messed up here!
 
JamesL said:
Que?
Click to expand...
We get scenarios where blatant VC/EF reds are deemed yellows and then the site goes into meltdown when someone says some minor industrial language and its a straight red..... Keep your reds in your pocket for the serious stuff, don't go looking for them!!!
 
JamesL said:
He doesn't kick him in the chest. He actually kicks the ball first, and there is the follow through into the midrift, but some of this is partly due to the attacker rushing in on him as he attempts to clear it. This is more acting with disregard to consequence for opponent, i.e reckless, for me than excessive force.
I can accept you seeing this as red but not just on virtue of where the contact is made. If you think its excessive then SFP it is; just not for me on this one.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but he has no business putting his foot there....and how can you even entertain the fact he "got the ball"..... we know it's not relevant.....
 
Mintyref said:
Sorry, but he has no business putting his foot there....and how can you even entertain the fact he "got the ball"..... we know it's not relevant.....
Click to expand...
I didn't say anywhere about "got the ball". You said he kicked him in the chest. I disagreed saying that he actually kicks the ball then follows through in the midriff.
I am fully aware getting the ball is not a get out of jail free card. Hence my decision being a yellow card. If I was playing the the got the ball card it would be play on.
We'll agree to disagree.
One of the worlds best didn't deem this a red card either and his support crew in the van haven't asked him to take another look so I do t think it's as plain as you think.
And as I said in my earlier post I am not saying you are wrong. If you see that as excessive then go for the red.
 
JamesL said:
I didn't say anywhere about "got the ball". You said he kicked him in the chest. I disagreed saying that he actually kicks the ball then follows through in the midriff.
I am fully aware getting the ball is not a get out of jail free card. Hence my decision being a yellow card. If I was playing the the got the ball card it would be play on.
We'll agree to disagree.
One of the worlds best didn't deem this a red card either and his support crew in the van haven't asked him to take another look so I do t think it's as plain as you think.
And as I said in my earlier post I am not saying you are wrong. If you see that as excessive then go for the red.
Click to expand...
You should comment on what you see, never mind what the "worlds best"and his get out of jail crew think....imagine this was your decision on the first view on a Sunday morning league near you......then what do you give?
 
socal lurker said:
Of course it’s “relevant.” Getting the ball doesn’t make him free and clear, but not getting the ball is a factor in deciding how bad it is.
Click to expand...
Yes, don't forget that up until as recently as 2008, the Laws used to contain a provision that a player who "tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball" was guilty of a foul, and the only reason that was removed was because it was leading some people into misinterpreting it to mean that "getting the ball first" was therefore not a foul, not because the wording in the law was invalid.

Where the ball is when a challenge occurs, whether a particular action was an attempt for the ball (or not), whether the player has the possibility of playing the ball etc are and have always been relevant, they're just not necessarily the deciding factor (other than in those cases where the law specifically says so, such as DOGSO offences in the penalty area).
 
Last edited:
Mintyref said:
You should comment on what you see, never mind what the "worlds best"and his get out of jail crew think....imagine this was your decision on the first view on a Sunday morning league near you......then what do you give?
Click to expand...
I have comented on what I have seen. Still yellow. Its not excessive force in my opinion.
My point regarding the "one of" (note that you misquoted me again) worlds best was just pointing out that an elite referee, widely regarded as one of the best, tipped to be this year's wc final referee, thought yellow. Another elite referee checked it and said it wasn't obviously wrong. To me, that helps me validate my own thinking and thought processes.
However, all that said, the fact an elite ref said yellow doesn't come into my thinking, initially. I watched the clip and immediately thought yellow as no DOGSO. I've even watched it again just to make sure I am comfortable with my comments. This didn't even twitch my SFP feelers. Straight up reckless. No Dogso.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
We get scenarios where blatant VC/EF reds are deemed yellows and then the site goes into meltdown when someone says some minor industrial language and its a straight red..... Keep your reds in your pocket for the serious stuff, don't go looking for them!!!
Click to expand...
Not guilty. I have one of the pottiest mouths going.
 
0e97a9a7-6c3e-4473-b251-0e9735424f14.jpg whether he (goalkeeper) got the ball first or not, after this second (i am not saying many referees could judge this liveview, we have the benefit of the VAR on this one) ball is still in the play advancing towards the goal, goalkeeper's reckless action slows down the attacker (which he was ahead of the defenders prior to getting kicked by the goalkeeper)... in my opinion, excessive force red card, if not,then DOGSO and redcard. take your pick it is a red card. Only with the benefit of VAR though...
 
Engin Ataman said:
View attachment 3443 whether he (goalkeeper) got the ball first or not, after this second (i am not saying many referees could judge this liveview, we have the benefit of the VAR on this one) ball is still in the play advancing towards the goal, goalkeeper's reckless action slows down the attacker (which he was ahead of the defenders prior to getting kicked by the goalkeeper)... in my opinion, excessive force red card, if not,then DOGSO and redcard. take your pick it is a red card. Only with the benefit of VAR though...
Click to expand...
1556521903841.png

and this is the next milisecond after goalkeeper's kick takes him down (benefit of VAR again) The ball would be within his reach...all he would have to do is kick it in the empty net but he was down. if you say this is yellow, then you agree that goalkeeper is fouling him. If he is fouling him then it is a DOGSO because he would have been the closest to the ball that is travelling towards the goal line with an empty net... so in my opinion there is no way to say this is a yellow...
 
Engin Ataman said:
View attachment 3444

and this is the next milisecond after goalkeeper's kick takes him down (benefit of VAR again) The ball would be within his reach...all he would have to do is kick it in the empty net but he was down. if you say this is yellow, then you agree that goalkeeper is fouling him. If he is fouling him then it is a DOGSO because he would have been the closest to the ball that is travelling towards the goal line with an empty net... so in my opinion there is no way to say this is a yellow...
Click to expand...

Two defenders in close proximity, ball travelling at speed and an awkward angle. I’m not yet convinced by DOGSO
 
There are 4 Dogso criteria to be Considered. For me the most important one to get started is Control of the ball or likelihood to regain control. Your stills paint a false picture.
1) in the first instance it's a long punt forward and he never has control of the ball
2)even if the keeper doesn't get to it first he isn't certainly going to regain possession of the ball
3) when the keeper plays the ball it cannons off the attacker and is likely to go out for a goal kick.

Proximity of other defenders
There are two defenders who are also impeded by the GKs actions. He isn't obviously going to get past them.

Direction of play
Is a probably, dependent on how his first touch goes, if he were to have beaten the keeper.

Distance to goal is an almost definite.

For me only one of the criteria, arguably the least weighted factor in Dogso, has been met.

Yes there might be a GSO but at the point of the foul it is not yet obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top