Agree with the whole watching three times thig - I hold nothing against the ref for giving red, I just think that on balance it was probably not DOGSO.Tough one! Think I'd give a penalty and yellow because he would of needed a touch before shooting which would of meant the second defender would of then been in a position to make a tackle. I did have to watch it three times though.lol
My instinct was penalty and no card - after all, the tackle was not wreckless.First time viewing what would you have given tho??
No because for me the defender was covering and would have been able to make the tackle had the foul not been committed.Do you not think it was denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity Southend?
If you watch the video again, you can see that the attacker takes a touch to the left just before he is fouled, which in my view would have taken him into the path of the covering defender and so it would not have been an obvious goal scoring opportunity.I think the mistake that people make (and I defer to refs with more experience than I) is that the offence of DOGSO refers to the "opportunity" to score. DOGSO doesn't mean that you have denied the player the obvious goal, merely the opportunity to score it. The "covering" player doesn't really come into it in my view, because, by taking the player out you have denied him the opportunity to score, and at the time of the offence, the covering player wasn't really in a position to prevent a shot were it to be taken.