A&H

WAL vs IRN Matchday 6 - Escobar (GUA)

Will FIFA confirm if it was SFP or DOGSO? Looks like the first footage shown was the contact then only after that a wider shot which could show the position of defenders.
 
The Referee Store
Hmm the line of sight offside. I don’t think this was right. The shot is not on target. Surely the LoS cannot apply. Then there’s a deflection and the attacker is not in line and does not impact.

Surely the player cannot be guilty of preventing the GK of playing the ball if the GK had no possibility to play the ball until the deflection… thoughts?
 
santa sangria said:
Hmm the line of sight offside. I don’t think this was right. The shot is not on target. Surely the LoS cannot apply. Then there’s a deflection and the attacker is not in line and does not impact.

Surely the player cannot be guilty of preventing the GK of playing the ball if the GK had no possibility to play the ball until the deflection… thoughts?
Click to expand...

Agree but wrong match thread I think.
 
msportstars said:
Understood, but in this case the foot was high before the player got there, he was nearly past the player when the collided so I dont see how this is the keeper assaulting the player its just very confusing how this ends up in a red when i cannot see how the law can be used clearly to be red but then I am junior at these things.
Click to expand...

Jim Ross voice: Misses with the big boot but not with the clothesline!
 
I think that is this referee's tournament over, the best he can hope for is a dead rubber on the final round of games, he certainly won't be progressing to the last 16 games. Even though VAR corrected his very obvious error, he will get an incorrect KMD and therefore a 7.9.

As for DOGSO vs SFP, it has to be SFP for me. DOGSO would be supportable, although there's a very good chance the covering defender would have got to the ball, but SFP is obvious. At home we would know as the ban would be different, but I think it is just a 1 game ban for both offences, so we might never know.
 
RustyRef said:
As for DOGSO vs SFP, it has to be SFP for me. DOGSO would be supportable, although there's a very good chance the covering defender would have got to the ball, but SFP is obvious. At home we would know as the ban would be different, but I think it is just a 1 game ban for both offences, so we might never know.
Click to expand...
Yea...this is what i don't like about International Soccer. It is difficult if not impossible to know what the discipline is of players or even seeing what the match sheet says for dismissal! This should be available.
 
Dale Johnson said it was shown for DOGSO and he's usually in the know.

Think FIFA decide on a case by case basis how long the ban is for SFP.
 
bester said:
Dale Johnson said it was shown for DOGSO and he's usually in the know.

Think FIFA decide on a case by case basis how long the ban is for SFP.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't make sense as the criteria for DOGSO aren't met! As I said previously, would love to see the match sheet of this!
 
Lkehoe said:
Your screen shot makes that obvious but i guess you don't see the Welshman in Red? Then there's that touch by the Iranian.
Click to expand...
1 defender and an open goal is still an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
And the touch slows the ball down into his path. He is likely to regain possession if he doesn't get hulk hogan'd.

Any road it's SFP as the more serious offence. But if not it's still dogso.
 
JamesL said:
1 defender and an open goal is still an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
And the touch slows the ball down into his path. He is likely to regain possession if he doesn't get hulk hogan'd.

Any road it's SFP as the more serious offence. But if not it's still dogso.
Click to expand...
No its not as that defender can close down the attacking player thus negating the obvious goal scoring opportunity! The Laws do not stipulate how many defenders are necessary. All it says is location (he's close) and number of defenders (as you can see, there was someone back there). Then there's the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball. That was a pretty heavy touch. As such...
 
Lkehoe said:
No its not as that defender can close down the attacking player thus negating the obvious goal scoring opportunity! The Laws do not stipulate how many defenders are necessary. All it says is location (he's close) and number of defenders (as you can see, there was someone back there). Then there's the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball. That was a pretty heavy touch. As such...
Click to expand...
Which is a better goal scoring opportunity? One on one with a keeper or a one on one with a defender. Keep in mind keeper can use hands as well as feet in PA.
 
Lkehoe said:
No its not as that defender can close down the attacking player thus negating the obvious goal scoring opportunity! The Laws do not stipulate how many defenders are necessary. All it says is location (he's close) and number of defenders (as you can see, there was someone back there). Then there's the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball. That was a pretty heavy touch. As such...
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing opportunity with certain goal.
It doesn't need to be obvious that he will score but that he will have an obvious scoring opportunity. 1on1 with a defender and open goal is about as obvious an opportunity as they come.
As for the GK. We don't really count him because he commits the offence and we have to look at it in a way that what it would look like if he didn't. If the GK was on his line and the red player committed the foul it would be red and this opportunity is better than that.
 
one said:
Which is a better goal scoring opportunity? One on one with a keeper or a one on one with a defender. Keep in mind keeper can use hands as well as feet in PA.
Click to expand...
Except that this was NOT in the penalty area and i don't care where this occurred be it in or out of the area. I literally pointed out to you why i feel this isn't DOGSO using the criteria for it in accordance with FIFA LOTG. You are now trying to argue schematics. The fact is, the Welsh defender would be either to A) Stop the attack or B) potentially get to the ball. Both of which negates DOGSO. You cannot discount that Welsh defender in deciding if it was DOGSO or not. The act itself, and i am sure we all agree, is Serious Foul Play, unless you don't think it meets that criteria either!
 
Lkehoe said:
Except that this was NOT in the penalty area and i don't care where this occurred be it in or out of the area. I literally pointed out to you why i feel this isn't DOGSO using the criteria for it in accordance with FIFA LOTG. You are now trying to argue schematics. The fact is, the Welsh defender would be either to A) Stop the attack or B) potentially get to the ball. Both of which negates DOGSO. You cannot discount that Welsh defender in deciding if it was DOGSO or not. The act itself, and i am sure we all agree, is Serious Foul Play, unless you don't think it meets that criteria either!
Click to expand...
You didn't get the point. But it looks like you have your mind made up so I won't try and explain it.
 
one said:
You didn't get the point. But it looks like you have your mind made up so I won't try and explain it.
Click to expand...
So using the Laws of the Game to prove my point isn't good enough? Ok! You're the one with your mind made up. I use the Laws for justification. Have a nice day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top