A&H

USA:WAL - Al-Jassim (QAT) Matchday 2

The Referee Store
Is obvious defined in the laws? Because the ordinary meaning of obvious is "easy to see". Bale is in the act of shooting into an open goal. It's easy to see how that is a goalscoring opportunity - i.e. the goalscoring opportunity is obvious.
 
Female Welsh supporters had their rainbow hats confiscated on their way in to the match.

Qatar, FIFA, you disgust me.

I wonder what the "sporting sanctions" would have been if the England and Wales captains (and the other 7 teams) had worn their armbands... yellows, reds?
 
Assuming I could ignore the b0ll0cks instructions from FIFA mandating how the game is/was reffed, I could've done a dam site better job me'sell
The Ref was hopeless IMO. The halting of the game at set pieces is just a continuation of a FIFA trend we're used to. Pathetic
As for time added... a peculiar development. The CK thing was funny. The basic LOTG competencies were not what I'd expect of a 4 to 3 candidate
 
Mr Dean said:
Is obvious defined in the laws? Because the ordinary meaning of obvious is "easy to see". Bale is in the act of shooting into an open goal. It's easy to see how that is a goalscoring opportunity - i.e. the goalscoring opportunity is obvious.
Click to expand...
The considerations - and they are only considerations - do ask interesting questions... and, in this case, distant to goal and the location and number of defenders are very much in doubt. While it's not mandatory to have all 4 considerations nailed on, and the laws cannot account for every situation, I think it's fair that by the LotG this might not be DOGSO. Then again, I think it's quite arguable either way. I'm interested what Webb, Madeley et al think!
 
Big Cat said:
Assuming I could ignore the b0ll0cks instructions from FIFA mandating how the game is/was reffed, I could've done a dam site better job me'sell
The Ref was hopeless IMO. The halting of the game at set pieces is just a continuation of a FIFA trend we're used to. Pathetic
As for time added... a peculiar development
Click to expand...
I think FIFA are priming us for the stop clock like futsal. They see dollar signs with every pause.
 
Mr Dean said:
Is obvious defined in the laws? Because the ordinary meaning of obvious is "easy to see". Bale is in the act of shooting into an open goal. It's easy to see how that is a goalscoring opportunity - i.e. the goalscoring opportunity is obvious.
Click to expand...
Yes, the first consideration is distance between the offence and the goal. Another is location and number of defenders. It ticks general direction of play and ability to keep or gain control of ball, but that isn't enough for DOGSO.
 
Even if it was a DOGSO in 'real life' it doesn't meet the nonsense IFAB criteria
 
RustyRef said:
Err, no you couldn't (and I have seen you referee 😂)
Click to expand...
Which game Mr Rust? You ought to have said hello!
I'd like to see your 4 to 3 report on Mr Qatar. Joking aside I'd perhaps melt with 10 billion spectators, so give it another year or two and I'll be ready!
 
santa sangria said:
The considerations - and they are only considerations - do ask interesting questions... and, in this case, distant to goal and the location and number of defenders are very much in doubt. While it's not mandatory to have all 4 considerations nailed on, and the laws cannot account for every situation, I think it's fair that by the LotG this might not be DOGSO. Then again, I think it's quite arguable either way. I'm interested what Webb, Madeley et al think!
Click to expand...
I agree that it's arguable either way. With regards to number and location of defenders, I think this consideration can be ticked off because the location of the defenders are not in front of the goal (i.e. open goal).

Regarding distance from goal, this consideration can also be ticked off because any footballer, including amateurs, can shoot from the halfway line into an empty goal. The laws do not mandate a specific distance to consider, only that distance is considered. Therefore, distance should be considered within the context of play and the context is Bale is in the act of shooting.

However, I can see why the distance consideration might deter the referee from calling a DOGSO.
 
RustyRef said:
Yes, the first consideration is distance between the offence and the goal. Another is location and number of defenders. It ticks general direction of play and ability to keep or gain control of ball, but that isn't enough for DOGSO.
Click to expand...
Happy to be corrected but I don't think those considerations are intended to define obvious. Therefore, "obvious" should be given its ordinary meaning: 'easy to see'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Mr Dean said:
I agree that it's arguable either way. With regards to number and location of defenders, I think this consideration can be ticked off because the location of the defenders are not in front of the goal (i.e. open goal).
Click to expand...

I have to agree, if it's much closer to goal and there's the same amount of defenders between bale and the net he has to keep his shot lower and so it is more likely to be blocked by a defender.

It is precisely because he is further out that he can lift it over the defenders and put it in an empty net, so the location of defenders is more favourable to Bale from this distance.
 
es1 said:
No, skill level is different

It absolutely is a clear and obvious
Click to expand...
One of the Argentinian players had a not-too-dissimilar opportunity during the second half (and from a closer distance)... completely scuffed it.
 
ARF said:
One of the Argentinian players had a not-too-dissimilar opportunity during the second half (and from a closer distance)... completely scuffed it.
Click to expand...

yeah i saw that and wondered if it might make it on here! i would say that I think bale had the ball better under control and better positioned to make a more controlled attempt to score, di maria had the ball under his feet which is why he scuffed it.

but yes, point taken!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
ladbroke8745 said:
Considering Bales caution in this match, how was Ream not cautioned for the penalty, leading to a 2nd yellow?

We're talking about a possible DOGSO late in the game and one saying it wouldn't have made a difference in this match, which is correct but still wrong in law (if you deemed it DOGSO) in that if a player went to swing a punch in the last seconds you'd still send him off even if it doesn't affect that very match but the next one.
I personally wouldn't have begrudged seeing a red as I can see an argument for it. But we all say at other times it's a yellow the striker would be one on one with the keeper and the defender brought him down on the half way line citing he has 50 yards to run still. That's probably more of better chance to score than a very long range shot.

But if Ream was sent off... we'd likely have a different outcome to the match still and it would have an affect on this match too.
Click to expand...
Because it was Zimmerman, not Ream, who committed the penalty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top