By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Sky showed the two incidents that the Blackburn manager moaned about on Saturday.
The first one, the potential penalty and red card for DOGSO. The ref stated VAR couldn’t or wouldn’t get involved as the push was outside the area, and VAR can only look at penalties, and also could not be a DOGSO as the player did not have the ball.
They did go on to say should have been a free kick outside the area.
The Furlong incident with Cantwell, was viewed as Furlong trying to get his body in front of Cantwell, potentially a yellow card.
That's just wrong . The laws don't mention a player having to be on control of the ball dor dogso and var can look at red card situations. They make it up as they see fit.
That's just wrong . The laws don't mention a player having to be on control of the ball dor dogso and var can look at red card situations. They make it up as they see fit.
This article, about current review of the rules, very much does imply that having possession of the ball is part of the rules currently.
That's just wrong . The laws don't mention a player having to be on control of the ball dor dogso and var can look at red card situations. They make it up as they see fit.
Really? A quick Google suggests otherwise.
"A clear goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) in soccer is when an attacker, with control of the ball and moving towards the goal, has a very high probability of scoring because there are no defenders (or only the goalkeeper) able to stop them, often resulting in a red card if the chance is illegally denied outside the penalty area. Referees assess this using four key factors: distance to goal, direction of play (towards goal), likelihood of gaining/keeping control and the number/position of defenders."
Our penalty appeal was a no no from me , just watched Town in 5 and to me that’s not a penalty IMHO.
That's not a good angle of it, where I was sitting you could clearly see the defender wipe out Azon before making contact with the ball, in that angle you can't really tell
Ismael knows he must be up for the chop if they carry on like they are, so his whinging will be distraction tactics mixed with frustration. They are in real danger of going down.
Do they ever go against the ref? Remember they tried to claim the ref was right not to give us a pen against Leicester last season, Stephen Warncock was speechless.
That's just wrong . The laws don't mention a player having to be on control of the ball dor dogso and var can look at red card situations. They make it up as they see fit.
The Ref on the show said, it could not be a DOGSO, as at the time of the incident, you didn’t know if the player would receive the ball, or how they would control it.
Definitely said you can’t give a red card for DOGSO if the player fouled is not in control of the ball.
Do they ever go against the ref? Remember they tried to claim the ref was right not to give us a pen against Leicester last season, Stephen Warncock was speechless.
He was more than speechless. He, and his co-presenter, fought our case admirably. The referee they had on (Dermott Gallagher?) was a cock.
Do they ever go against the ref? Remember they tried to claim the ref was right not to give us a pen against Leicester last season, Stephen Warncock was speechless.
Usually, they back the refs but this was purely based on should we have VAR in the Championship.
Also the Ref did say that Dalot should have received a red for a foul on Doku in the Manchester derby, that the Ref and VAR both stated yellow.
"A clear goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) in soccer is when an attacker, with control of the ball and moving towards the goal, has a very high probability of scoring because there are no defenders (or only the goalkeeper) able to stop them, often resulting in a red card if the chance is illegally denied outside the penalty area. Referees assess this using four key factors: distance to goal, direction of play (towards goal), likelihood of gaining/keeping control and the number/position of defenders."
Always go to the actual source. "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off."
Our penalty appeal was a no no from me , just watched Town in 5 and to me that’s not a penalty IMHO.
I can see how you might think the defender got the ball first, but if you watch more closely you'll see that Ivan got his left foot down between the defender and the ball as the bloke made his tackle, and consequently the defender went through Ivan to get to the ball.
Definite penalty for VAR, understandable mistake by the ref.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Always go to the actual source. "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off."
Assuming your snippet is everything that it says, the rule seems ambiguous as to whether the fouled player must have the ball.
I'd argue that having and being in control of the ball is necessary for DOGSO as, otherwise, there are too many variables in play.
Even if the fouled player is standing on the penalty spot, with the goal wide open before him, waiting for the ball to be played, his team-mate could over-hit his pass, or he could mis-control the ball.
There are too many ifs, buts, and maybes required before the player is actually in a goal scoring position.
Always go to the actual source. "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off."
The key elements come from the PL themselves, regarding application and interpretation of all the laws. Which is essential, since there will be various clauses that need to be considered for a full application. In this case, for example, the definition of a DOGSO.
The snippet you have quoted doesn't even apply here, since the offence wasn't in the penalty area. The contact (push) was about 1.5m short of the line, and only the fall is in the area. This can be seen far more clearly when you have the opportunity to advance the incident frame by frame.
Assuming your snippet is everything that it says, the rule seems ambiguous as to whether the fouled player must have the ball.
I'd argue that having and being in control of the ball is necessary for DOGSO as, otherwise, there are too many variables in play.
Even if the fouled player is standing on the penalty spot, with the goal wide open before him, waiting for the ball to be played, his team-mate could over-hit his pass, or he could mis-control the ball.
There are too many ifs, buts, and maybes required before the player is actually in a goal scoring position.
Its not ambiguous at all. It is a direct extract of the relevant section on DOGSO from the laws.
Your analysis is very difficutl to understand. Imagine a ball on the goal line, with a keeper stranded several yards behind the attacker on the 6 yard line. Striker swings a boot, cannot possibly miss, but the keeper grabs his boot and prevents the goal.
Of course the rule applies there.
Any DOGSO decision takes into account the possibility of missing. Which is why its about a "clear opportunity" rather than a certain one.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
