WAL vs IRN Matchday 6 - Escobar (GUA)

[RustyRef]

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!

As the referee you have to decide if that one defender that can possibly get to the ball will get there ahead of the attacker. He might have done, he might not have, so as an observer I would support either a caution or red card. It certainly isn't a fact, as you say, that the Welsh defender would be able to stop the attack or get to the ball. Stopping the attack is irrelevant, yes he could get between the attacker and goal, but he can't use his hands, and an attacker one on one with a defender with no keeper is a clear DOGSO. So that just leaves would he have got to the ball, and I'd say that is probably 50/50, which is why I would be going SFP as that is more obvious.

 

[RustyRef]

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.

Hold on please, this isn't how we behave on here, either keep your replies civil or they will be deleted. Not a fantastic start to your first day and there will need to be an improvement.

 

[Lkehoe]

Hold on please, this isn't how we behave on here, either keep your replies civil or they will be deleted. Not a fantastic start to your first day and there will need to be an improvement.

My replies have been civil sir! If someone feels they weren't i of course apologize. With that said, make sure others know that to say someone has their mind made up isn't going to make someone happy and i will defend myself from such charges.

 

[Lkehoe]

As the referee you have to decide if that one defender that can possibly get to the ball will get there ahead of the attacker. He might have done, he might not have, so as an observer I would support either a caution or red card. It certainly isn't a fact, as you say, that the Welsh defender would be able to stop the attack or get to the ball. Stopping the attack is irrelevant, yes he could get between the attacker and goal, but he can't use his hands, and an attacker one on one with a defender with no keeper is a clear DOGSO. So that just leaves would he have got to the ball, and I'd say that is probably 50/50, which is why I would be going SFP as that is more obvious.

Well said!

 

[JamesL]

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!

I will use IFAB LOTG thanks.

Distance to goal - c.25-30 yards
General direction of play - towards goal
Number and location of defenders- 1 defender and keeper a long way out of his goal
Control or likelihood to regain control - imo a high chance to regain control.

Law 5 in the opinion of this referee this is a DOGSO.

I appreciate your opinion is different but you also need to be prepared to have your opinion challenged and debated, as do I

 

[socal lurker]

The only possible debate here is likelihood of gaining or maintaining control. If you think the attacker slowed enough by playing the ball that even without the GK‘s foul the defender had a good chance of getting the ball first, then it isn’t DOGSO. If you think the attacker was getting there first in the absence of the foul, then it’s DOGSO.

IMHO, the DOGSO is a close enough call it shouldn’t have been sent down. But the SFP seems so stone cold obvious, I remain perplexed that the DOGSO is the issue (but there are definitely some indicators that it was for DOGSO.

(Though once at the screen, the R can give any discipline he feels warranted. So i think it is a possibility is that the VAR sent down for SFP, the R disagreed, but then agreed to send off for DOGSO.)

 

[Lkehoe]

I will use IFAB LOTG thanks.

Distance to goal - c.25-30 yards
General direction of play - towards goal
Number and location of defenders- 1 defender and keeper a long way out of his goal
Control or likelihood to regain control - imo a high chance to regain control.

Law 5 in the opinion of this referee this is a DOGSO.

I appreciate your opinion is different but you also need to be prepared to have your opinion challenged and debated, as do I

Don't care if my opinion is challenged but i can make the case that this wasn't DOGSO and have numerous times.

 

[RefIADad]

Which ones aren't metView attachment 6189

For what it’s worth, I had a similar play in a match earlier this fall, but more to the left of the D. Closest defender was in a fairy similar position. I was the AR, and I immediately thought DOGSO and advised the center as much when he consulted with me. But this is an easy SFP red as well. On the US referee forum, our opinion was that the VAR was showing video that would support looming at SFP first.

 

[JamesL]

For what it’s worth, I had a similar play in a match earlier this fall, but more to the left of the D. Closest defender was in a fairy similar position. I was the AR, and I immediately thought DOGSO and advised the center as much when he consulted with me. But this is an easy SFP red as well. On the US referee forum, our opinion was that the VAR was showing video that would support looming at SFP first.

Totally agree, this is SFP first and foremost.

 

[Mr Dean]

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.

This is why I don't like the wording of DOGSO because technically any sort of possession of the ball is an opportunity to score a goal; players score from their own half of the field sometimes.

Therefore, a goalkeeper in possession of the ball in his own half of the field has an obvious opportunity to score a goal despite the opportunity not being a good one. A strict interpretation of the laws would therefore mean that any offence is DOGSO and result in a red card (unless a penalty kick is awarded and there was an attempt to play the ball).

Clearly, this is a bad interpretation of the law. For this reason, referees interpret opportunity as very good opportunity. Thus, DOGSO only applies if the opportunity to score a goal is a very good opportunity.

In this case, I think the covering defender will likely prevent a goal being scored. It's a judgement call and different referees will judge it differently. In any case, it's SFP.

 

[JamesL]

This is why I don't like the wording of DOGSO because technically any sort of possession of the ball is an opportunity to score a goal; players score from their own half of the field sometimes.

Therefore, a goalkeeper in possession of the ball in his own half of the field has an obvious opportunity to score a goal despite the opportunity not being a good one. A strict interpretation of the laws would therefore mean that any offence is DOGSO and result in a red card (unless a penalty kick is awarded and there was an attempt to play the ball).

Clearly, this is a bad interpretation of the law. For this reason, referees interpret opportunity as very good opportunity. Thus, DOGSO only applies if the opportunity to score a goal is a very good opportunity.

In this case, I think the covering defender will likely prevent a goal being scored. It's a judgement call and different referees will judge it differently. In any case, it's SFP.

I think I missed the word obvious from my post.


I don't think even the strictest application of law could ever see a DOGSO from any challenge.

Agree it's SFP. The defender might prevent a goal being scored but that doesn't stop it being an obvious opportunity.

There is always a question of will it won't it be scored with a DOGSO. A player could be 1 yard out and still not score. That doesn't change how obvious the opportunity to score is.

 

[one]

This is why I don't like the wording of DOGSO because technically any sort of possession of the ball is an opportunity to score a goal; players score from their own half of the field sometimes.

Therefore, a goalkeeper in possession of the ball in his own half of the field has an obvious opportunity to score a goal despite the opportunity not being a good one. A strict interpretation of the laws would therefore mean that any offence is DOGSO and result in a red card (unless a penalty kick is awarded and there was an attempt to play the ball).

Clearly, this is a bad interpretation of the law. For this reason, referees interpret opportunity as very good opportunity. Thus, DOGSO only applies if the opportunity to score a goal is a very good opportunity.

In this case, I think the covering defender will likely prevent a goal being scored. It's a judgement call and different referees will judge it differently. In any case, it's SFP.

I think the word 'obvious' is to qualify 'goal scoring' and not the 'opportunity'. While the goal keeper in his own PA may have an obvious opportunity to score a goal, he does not have the opportunity to score an obvious goal. Hope this makes sense. I don't see any other way the laws could put this in english.

I think we can blame the English language for this one rather than the law

 

[Mr Dean]

I think the word 'obvious' is to qualify 'goal scoring' and not the 'opportunity'. While the goal keeper in his own PA may have an obvious opportunity to score a goal, he does not have the opportunity to score an obvious goal. Hope this makes sense. I don't see any other way the laws could put this in english.

I think we can blame the English language for this one rather than the law

"Opportunity to score an obvious goal" sounds a bit silly to me. Surely in matches with goal line technology, all goals are obvious. Can you score a goal that isn't obvious?

 

[one]

"Opportunity to score an obvious goal" sounds a bit silly to me. Surely in matches with goal line technology, all goals are obvious. Can you score a goal that isn't obvious?

Again blame the English language here. We all know what we want it to mean. Expressing it in English is not easy without someone finding a fault it. What do you suggest?

 

[Mr Dean]

Again blame the English language here. We all know what we want it to mean. Expressing it in English is not easy without someone finding a fault it. What do you suggest?

On the list of things which need fixing in the laws, this is quite low down on the list. If you really wanted a quick fix, simply replace the word "obvious" with another adjective e.g. "good", "favourable", or even "obviously good".