Villa v City

[HoofItYouDonkey]

About 40 seconds, referee gives a penalty, DOGSO surely??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35450227

 

[Jacko]

Raheem didn't have possession of the ball.

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

Raheem didn't have possession of the ball.

Is that a factor as far as a goal scoring opportunity is concerned???

 

[Jacko]

He has been denied a shot on goal. But it wasn't obvious as he didn't have possession of the ball. Enough get out there for me.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Never a DOGSO for me as it's not "obvious" he will even gain possession of the ball in the first place to have a goal scoring opportunity.

 

[Peter Grove]

Is that a factor as far as a goal scoring opportunity is concerned???

Yes, in fact it's one of the main criteria according to the LotG.

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying [...] an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
[...]
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

 

[bester]

He was nearly guaranteed to GAIN possession of the ball! Criteria satisified.

 

[Jacko]

@bester You what mate?

 

[bester]

• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

He's going to gain possession 10-yards from goal with an easy opportunity to score, a 10-yard old would be disappointed to miss that.

 

[Tealeaf]

• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

He's going to gain possession 10-yards from goal with an easy opportunity to score, a 10-yard old would be disappointed to miss that.

Agree - it was obvious that there was an opportunity there. The foul takes away that opportunity. Now he could have shanked it or missed it entirely, but the opportunity itself is key - and it is Villa, so it would have gone in!

 

[ARF]

He was nearly guaranteed to GAIN possession of the ball! Criteria satisified.

I disagree - it looked like he had overran it to me.

 

[ASM]

I disagree - it looked like he had overran it to me.

Given he was running on to a cross at the time, I don't think that was the case.

 

[Tealeaf]

By the power vested in me... I've added a poll so we can see straight away just how close the split is to 50/50. I suspect it will be close.

 

[Russell Jones]

I'm with Alex on this one. There's enough doubt in my mind about whether he would have gained possession to justify no DOGSO in this case. Potentially controversially, other things being equal, I find myself slightly less likely to give DOGSO when the foul is in the penalty area and thus the attacking team are already getting significant recompense for the foul. If it's clear cut, then no problem, red it is, but if there's reason to doubt the obvious opportunity to score then a simple penalty seems to work well.

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

DOGSO for me. I always go on first instinct, and I said 'DOGSO' as soon as I saw it.

 

[Kieran W]

I think you can lip read Mike Jones saying 'no DOGSO' at about 50 seconds

 

[Peter Grove]

Given he was running on to a cross at the time, I don't think that was the case.

I've just looked at it again and I think I know what Alex R-F means. The cross was in the nature of a cut-back pass and you could argue Sterling was already too far forward and that even without the push the ball would have arrived just behind him making a) control and possession slightly more problematic and b) a less than obvious goal scoring opportunity since he would have had to turn backwards, away from the goal, in order to control the ball.

However you could also argue that he had not gone too far forward and the ball would have come to him for a relatively easy shot at goal with only the keeper to beat. Even after watching it several times, I'm still not 100% convinced either way.