A&H

Villa v City

Foul on Sterling - DOGSO or not?

  • Total voters
    21
The Referee Store
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.
 
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.
 
HoofItYouDonkey said:
Is that a factor as far as a goal scoring opportunity is concerned???
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
 
• 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.
 
bester said:
• 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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
ASM said:
Given he was running on to a cross at the time, I don't think that was the case.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top