A&H

SPA or DOGSO?

The Referee Store
Ciley Myrus said:
Not DOGSO for me, the attacker is not in control of that ball at any point and even without the handling offence, its not obvious to say he would have got control.
Click to expand...
Does look to be dropping right in front of him with just a defender to beat, it's a close one.
 
A YC is a let off for the GK there. This is a classic professional foul. The Gk has deliberately handled to stop the striker taking control and taking a shot from the spot at a goal with no keeper.

Distance, likelihood, direction, number...

Likelihood of the attacker taking the next touch is cast iron.

There is some doubt about the likelihood and number if defs... but there’s also an avalanche for DOGSO here.

Football expects... it’s so blatant!
 
santa sangria said:
A YC is a let off for the GK there. This is a classic professional foul. The Gk has deliberately handled to stop the striker taking control and taking a shot from the spot at a goal with no keeper.

Distance, likelihood, direction, number...

Likelihood of the attacker taking the next touch is cast iron.

There is some doubt about the likelihood and number if defs... but there’s also an avalanche for DOGSO here.

Football expects... it’s so blatant!
Click to expand...



As ever am gonna phrase this in a way that reads poorly so sorry in advance, but...

If there is some doubt etc....how can it be clear and obvious??????
 
one defender to beat who cant use his hands is a more OGSO that one defender to beat who can (keeper). Likelihood of control and distance are also a pass for me. I'm giving a red.

On a side note, when the goal keeper is happy when you are showing him a yellow, its probably a sign he thinks it should have been a red.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
As ever am gonna phrase this in a way that reads poorly so sorry in advance, but...

If there is some doubt etc....how can it be clear and obvious??????
Click to expand...
There is some doubt in 100% fulfulling tje critrion. This is ”consideration” ;)

100-90-100-75 and blatant. RC surely.
 
I'm happy with SPA, defender covering and another coming into the box. It's a goal-scoring opportunity but nothing obvious about it, still a lot of work to do for me, attacker is going slightly away from goal. Having said that, I can see the argument for DOGSO and wouldn't complain had he been sent off.
 
santa sangria said:
Is that a question?
With your assessor hat on, would you accept the explantion for RC that 2 criteria are fulfilled and 2 more are mostly fulfilled with a little doubt?
Click to expand...


I would not mark it as incorrect, because, if the ref views that as dogso then I might disagree but I would understand. I would say. "From my vantage point, or so on, that I did not class it as dogso because....."

The two replies above are my thinking but a call like this does not have a yes or no, (for me)
 
Stonewall red card for me. Guarnteed that the attacker gets to the ball before anybody else, and only a defender to beat.

Ball isn't exactly moving at pace, easy first time half-volley.
 
There's some doubt, so SPA
I lined for a ref last season who failed his promotion for a similar call last year. The ref consulted with the other AR and sent the GK off for a slightly less obvious, but similar incident. Shame i was on the wrong side as i'm usually 60/40 in favour of the offender
 
That's DOGSO for me. Yes, there are covering defenders, but they can't use their hands and I think the attacker there has a shot at goal with no keeper had the handball not occurred.
 
There are no covering defenders. There's the one committing the foul and the keeper. The other defenders are behind and would not be in a position to intercept.

Regarding the doubt question. It's not black and white, off/on. It's shades of grey. A scale. How likely is the attacker to control the ball? There's 'very easy', 'no chance' and everything in between.

It's like direction to the goal. When an attacker taps the ball to go around a keeper and is fouled - there's a point where you can't argue they're going to goal, and a point where you can't argue they're NOT going to goal. Then there's everything in between. Where in that scale I pin the tail on the donkey and say 'at this point it's obvious' might be different to where you do it.

Obvious is a subjective decision. Remember we're only dealing with an obvious CHANCE.

And because it's subjective, sometimes we push that decision. If it's a really low grade, social match, simple innocently mistimed challenge, 6-0 and it's one of those 'kind of angling away a little', then we're probably going to push that 'direction' argument as far as we can to keep them on the park - but there's a point where we can't. Similarly, when it's a blatant, intentional foul to deny a goal, I think we're more likely to want to send them off if we can justify it. And that, I believe, is within the spirit of the game.

Here, we have blatant cheating to stop a goal. So, I'm not wanting to search too hard to keep him on the park. If I can't justify DOGSO then I Can't, but where it's at that grey, subjective point - well, I'm pushing it towards the red here.

So, as I said there's an obvious CHANCE. I'd say that, taking the fouling player out of the equation, there's a very good chance the attacker will reach the ball before the keeper. The ball is closer to the attacker and dropping. It'll be close between them, but I think the likelihood is of the attacker getting there first. If he does manage to take a controlling touch, then he's in an OGSO with only the keeper to beat. Is the keeper too close to the ball/attacker for the attacker to be able to take a controlling touch? Maybe, but, I think the attacker at least has a clear and obvious opportunity here.

So it's a red for me. But if I was assessing, I may accept a yellow if the reasoning was sound.

IF you're going to say that it looks little better than a 50-50 between the keeper and the attacker, then I can accept that. It's not a 50-50 - IMO the attacker will reach it first - but there will be disagreement over whether the attacker can reach it early enough.

I think the blatantness of the action and the spirit of the law expects us to try to give the red here if we can justify it.
 
Just shows you as a referee whatever decision you make you will get criticised from one team-set of fans.

We have watched this how many times and it still splits opinion.

I try and weigh up in this type of decision would the player have a shot on goal with his next two touches and i think in this case he certainly would.

Id have gone RED personally but dont have a major issue with referee giving a yellow.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
There are no covering defenders. There's the one committing the foul and the keeper. The other defenders are behind and would not be in a position to intercept.

Regarding the doubt question. It's not black and white, off/on. It's shades of grey. A scale. How likely is the attacker to control the ball? There's 'very easy', 'no chance' and everything in between.

It's like direction to the goal. When an attacker taps the ball to go around a keeper and is fouled - there's a point where you can't argue they're going to goal, and a point where you can't argue they're NOT going to goal. Then there's everything in between. Where in that scale I pin the tail on the donkey and say 'at this point it's obvious' might be different to where you do it.

Obvious is a subjective decision. Remember we're only dealing with an obvious CHANCE.

And because it's subjective, sometimes we push that decision. If it's a really low grade, social match, simple innocently mistimed challenge, 6-0 and it's one of those 'kind of angling away a little', then we're probably going to push that 'direction' argument as far as we can to keep them on the park - but there's a point where we can't. Similarly, when it's a blatant, intentional foul to deny a goal, I think we're more likely to want to send them off if we can justify it. And that, I believe, is within the spirit of the game.

Here, we have blatant cheating to stop a goal. So, I'm not wanting to search too hard to keep him on the park. If I can't justify DOGSO then I Can't, but where it's at that grey, subjective point - well, I'm pushing it towards the red here.

So, as I said there's an obvious CHANCE. I'd say that, taking the fouling player out of the equation, there's a very good chance the attacker will reach the ball before the keeper. The ball is closer to the attacker and dropping. It'll be close between them, but I think the likelihood is of the attacker getting there first. If he does manage to take a controlling touch, then he's in an OGSO with only the keeper to beat. Is the keeper too close to the ball/attacker for the attacker to be able to take a controlling touch? Maybe, but, I think the attacker at least has a clear and obvious opportunity here.

So it's a red for me. But if I was assessing, I may accept a yellow if the reasoning was sound.

IF you're going to say that it looks little better than a 50-50 between the keeper and the attacker, then I can accept that. It's not a 50-50 - IMO the attacker will reach it first - but there will be disagreement over whether the attacker can reach it early enough.

I think the blatantness of the action and the spirit of the law expects us to try to give the red here if we can justify it.
Click to expand...









Can i check you do know the orange team are attacking?
Clearly a covering defender, but my over riding issue is orange never has the ball and, its going even further away from him, but for the gk handling.
I reading your post am not sure you grasp the offence here is gk handling outside the box? I say this because you mention,the one committing the foul AND the gk, well, its the gk who committs the offence?
And then, Taking the fouling player out of the equation?

The ball at point of gk handling, is two yards away from orange, and going further away from him, but for the gk intervention.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7095.PNG
    IMG_7095.PNG
    1.7 MB · Views: 10
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top