VAR again

[Ciley Myrus]

Is there any guidance on DOGSO HB? From the freeze frame above, I'd expect a top keeper to save that, so I'd be opposed to Ciley's red card (assuming the HB was indeed deliberate, which I'm doubtful of having not watched the game)

No no no no ! A clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity is not based on the chances of the keeper saving it !!!! This should not be one of the considerations! Its a clear and obvious chance to score. Chance to score.
Not based on the keepers ability or otherwise.

When digesting DOGSO the ability of the keeper is not a consideration, the fact a direct shot is travelling to the middle of the goal (but for the defenders handball) is what we consider.

 

[Big Cat]

No no no no ! A clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity is not based on the chances of the keeper saving it !!!! This should not be one of the considerations! Its a clear and obvious chance to score. Chance to score.
Not based on the keepers ability or otherwise.

When digesting DOGSO the ability of the keeper is not a consideration, the fact a direct shot is travelling to the middle of the goal (but for the defenders handball) is what we consider.

That's why I'm asking if there's been any official guidance handed out (specifically for HB DOGSO) to those higher up the Church of Scientology pyramid

 

[es1]

using this shot as an example, if a player dives and blatantly and clearly intentionally handballs it we would send off irregardless of the likelihood of the keeper saving.

in that case i think you have to send if the obviousness of the handball is not quite as blatant, if you call it deliberate the punishment has to be the same.

there are differences though, say this was a shanked shot that was looping up to the keeper or off target then a yellow would be the max punishment. but well struck and on target, red imo

 

[Big Cat]

There must be some other consideration to the fact the shot is on target however... (once HB is a given)

 

[RobOda]

If you are penalsing the handball, it follows suit a red should follow

BBC (shock) actually pondered that by arguing if he was a bit further back it would be a red surely?

Also, while I agree with the line of thinking that it may be a red card, I do wonder if that happened in our games would that decision be seen as credible? - I get the sense that maybe this would be something the players and fans might feel is an unexpected call.

 

[one]

No no no no ! A clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity is not based on the chances of the keeper saving it !!!! This should not be one of the considerations! Its a clear and obvious chance to score. Chance to score.
Not based on the keepers ability or otherwise.

I think you are mixing a bit VAR terminology in there for drama effect. DOGSO is only obvious, there is not need for clear but that's only semantics.

There must be some other consideration to the fact the shot is on target however... (once HB is a given)

There are quite a few in "FIFA Considerations – Analysis of Match Situations" for DOGSO-foul but nothing for DOGSO-HB. For me anything that impacts on the opportunity become obvious is under consideration and that includes the keeper's ability, distance from shot to goal (when keeper is in goal), and in this case if the keeper has a clear line of sight. I think if you role the tape after the moment of handball keeper is having a good attempt for a save. It's touch and go but I lean on the DOGSO side bar below.

The consideration for me, which hasn't been raised yet, is that if there was no handball and a goal was scored, it would have probably been offside (obstructing line of vision by PIOP) and hence no goal scoring opportunity. I think that is why it took so long for the review, to determine the colour of the card, not if it was a deliberate handball.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Its not exact same and some imagining is required, but its the clip that springs to mind.... ok I get the goalie is standing next to the defender, but, imagine the gk was standing on his line....... it still be a red card

When the City ref deems his incident to be deliberate handball, I think the red (harsh as it might seem) should follow.


1 min 30 on the clip

 

[Ref Luke 2203]

I disagree that constitutes a DOGSO. I would suggest the hand stops a promising goal scoring opportunity (YC) but at that distance from goal where the handball was not a deliberate act with the keeper still to beat, I would not be considering that as an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I disagree that constitutes a DOGSO. I would suggest the hand stops a promising goal scoring opportunity (YC) but at that distance from goal where the handball was not a deliberate act with the keeper still to beat, I would not be considering that as an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

You dont think someone shooting direct into the posts is a clear opportunity to score?
Do you think of the goalies chances on the stereotypical one on one when the centre half does his last man tackle?

We happily dismiss 30 yards out with ball at strikers feet, with the gk to beat, and thats classed as a obvious goal scoring opportunity!
So, a shot on target blocked, ten yards from the goal, has to be an even more obvious opportunity to score a goal!

Remember, its opportunity to score. Not the exact science of, actually scoring

We dont give the keepers ability to save it a thought!

Take the handball offence away and consider it just a direct shot on goal...thats the goal scoring opportunity!

What do you think the attacker is doing if its not havimg an on target shot at goal?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

That's why I'm asking if there's been any official guidance handed out (specifically for HB DOGSO) to those higher up the Church of Scientology pyramid

Clearest way to break it down is, take the actual handball defender out of the equation
Just focus on attacker firing in his shot, directly at target and with reasonable force.
You now have your obvious goal scoring opportunity?
Bearing in mind, opportunity, a chance to score.

Now add back on the defenders handball. And that opportunity to score has been denied.

 

[Big Cat]

Just to clarify, it's not an 'opportunity to score', it's an 'obvious goals scoring opportunity'
There's quite a big difference between the two

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Just to clarify, it's not an 'opportunity to score', it's an 'obvious goals scoring opportunity'
There's quite a big difference between the two

A direct hit on goal which has been blocked ten yard from the centre of the posts?
Very obvious to me


Edit. 11 yards

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Any news on Peter Walton giving his head a shake??

 

[Big Cat]

A direct hit on goal which has been blocked ten yard from the centre of the posts?
Very obvious to me


Edit. 11 yards

Maybe. Anyway, as @one indicated, the YC was likely because the GK's view was obstructed by an offside player

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Maybe. Anyway, as @one indicated, the YC was likely because the GK's view was obstructed by an offside player

I be amazed if that came into the equation real time
Thought process is....is it handball, then, is it a sanction...

Offside out the window at that point.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If "last man defender' hacked striker where the alledged handball is.....dogso red

 

[socal lurker]

I be amazed if that came into the equation real time
Thought process is....is it handball, then, is it a sanction...

Offside out the window at that point.

Of course offside is not out the window. If, ITOOTR, the OSP player was blocking the vision of the GK, there was no goal scoring opportunity at all, let alone an obvious one.

And if the VAR was doing his job, of course that was being considered. Indeed, the AR should have been advising the R of the OSP issue, even without VAR.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Of course offside is not out the window. If, ITOOTR, the OSP player was blocking the vision of the GK, there was no goal scoring opportunity at all, let alone an obvious one.

And if the VAR was doing his job, of course that was being considered. Indeed, the AR should have been advising the R of the OSP issue, even without VAR.

If the first shot goes straight in, Goal. Even after review.
Negates the offside query



In your version, what can the yc be for? Spa on an attack which you are saying does not exist?

 

[Big Cat]

Football has never been a science, that's why it doesn't fit well with forensic scrutiny

 

[socal lurker]

If the first shot goes straight in, Goal. Even after review.
Negates the offside query

You lost me. The question on the shot is whether the OSP player is blocking the vision of the GK. If it goes in, it would still be OS if ITOOTR the OSP player blocked the GK's vision.

In your version, what can the yc be for? Spa on an attack which you are saying does not exist?

I didn't suggest there should be a caution.

I see three paths to a caution. R opinion not DOGSO not based on OS. R thought about OS as alleviating DOGSO but didn't think about it with respect to SPA. The improper caution on handling to sell a PK.

I wasn't going to weigh in on the core DOGSO question, but what the heck. DOGSO-F requires denying an opportunity; DOGSO-H requires denial of an OGSO or a goal.

I don't think the guidance on how to apply the OGSO part of handling is very clear.* I think the OGSO part of DOGSO-H is really aimed at a handling that prevents an opponent from getting the ball in an opportune position--taking away an opportunity from a player. And I think the denying a goal is the aspect that is intended to apply to a shot. Where the R thinks it is likely the handled shot was off target or likely to be saved by the GK, there was no obvious goal to be scored. And I think that is actually the reasoning that was applied by the referee here.

_________
*Fortunately USSF abandoned its clear but incorrect guidance. For a period of time USSF taught that DOGSO-H applied only to handling a ball that would have ended up in the goal, reading the opportunity part completely out of the law.