Just because a foul is SFP doesn't mean it can't be a DOGSO offence as well. While it does make it something of a moot point if the player is being sent off for SFP anyway, in this case I think the point is that even though the referee for some inexplicable reason did not see this as SFP, DOGSO would still be a consideration.
I think everyone in this thread agrees that this is SFP. However I really don't understand what point (if any) you're trying to make in relation to whether it was also a DOGSO offence. Are you saying that it was DOGSO, that it wasn't DOGSO, that it can't be DOGSO because it's SFP, or what? I really can't tell. And what does, "The DOGO is limited to the denying of the GSO" mean?
I already stipulated that it is an academic discussion if (as in this situation) the player should be sent off for SFP anyway. So that is what we were having here - an academic discussion relating to various aspects of the incident. And in an academic discussion, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss theoretical aspects of a the matter at hand, such as: if in a hypothetical scenario this were not SFP, would a possibility of a DOGSO offence be a consideration?
