| Ref Watch 11:57 - Jan 19 with 3272 views | Dennyx4 |
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.
In summary, VAR would not have helped Blackburn.
They didn’t show our penalty claim. |  | | |  |
| Ref Watch on 16:44 - Jan 19 with 434 views | Zx1988 |
| Ref Watch on 16:43 - Jan 19 by redrickstuhaart |
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. |
That's a different situation - the player is in the act of playing the ball.
If the 'obvious goalscorer' is not in possession of the ball, there is not yet an obvious goalscoring opportunity. |  |
| |
| Ref Watch on 16:47 - Jan 19 with 431 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ref Watch on 16:44 - Jan 19 by Zx1988 |
That's a different situation - the player is in the act of playing the ball.
If the 'obvious goalscorer' is not in possession of the ball, there is not yet an obvious goalscoring opportunity. |
The law does not require someone to be in control of the ball.
Its clear as day. Its about a reaosnable assessment of whether it denies a clear opportunity. In hte instance under discussion, it clearly did. The ref watch fellow saying its exempt because the player doesnt have the ball, is simply not what the laws say.
As with many such situations, the refs have come up with their own interpretations and internal guides about such things, which often do not reflect what is actually written down. See also, the handball rule... | |
| |
| Ref Watch on 16:55 - Jan 19 with 412 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Ref Watch on 16:47 - Jan 19 by redrickstuhaart |
The law does not require someone to be in control of the ball.
Its clear as day. Its about a reaosnable assessment of whether it denies a clear opportunity. In hte instance under discussion, it clearly did. The ref watch fellow saying its exempt because the player doesnt have the ball, is simply not what the laws say.
As with many such situations, the refs have come up with their own interpretations and internal guides about such things, which often do not reflect what is actually written down. See also, the handball rule... |
"Things to consider for denying a goal or clear goal-scoring opportunity are:
-Distance between the offence and the goal
-General direction of the play
-Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
-Location and number of defenders"
LAW 12 from the IFAB. Although the wording is different, that is saying you have control of the ball. | | | |
| Ref Watch on 17:20 - Jan 19 with 381 views | Dubtractor |
| Ref Watch on 16:43 - Jan 19 by redrickstuhaart |
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. |
Your extract is specific to incidents inside the area though, not all incidents, it seems like a smaller extract from a wider passage of txt about DOGSO. |  |
| |
| Ref Watch on 17:31 - Jan 19 with 336 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
If Furlong was on the receiving end of the elbow the entire board would be screaming for a red card and that is the decision that would be giving in a PL match with VAR. |  |
| |
| Ref Watch on 17:58 - Jan 19 with 318 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ref Watch on 16:55 - Jan 19 by SuffolkPunchFC |
"Things to consider for denying a goal or clear goal-scoring opportunity are:
-Distance between the offence and the goal
-General direction of the play
-Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
-Location and number of defenders"
LAW 12 from the IFAB. Although the wording is different, that is saying you have control of the ball. |
"or gaining"
So, no. | |
| |
| Ref Watch on 18:00 - Jan 19 with 316 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ref Watch on 16:40 - Jan 19 by SuffolkPunchFC |
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. |
Find me anything in the laws which says that the player has to have the ball.
There isnt anything. The refs have made this up for themselves. | |
| |
| Ref Watch on 18:02 - Jan 19 with 311 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ref Watch on 17:20 - Jan 19 by Dubtractor |
Your extract is specific to incidents inside the area though, not all incidents, it seems like a smaller extract from a wider passage of txt about DOGSO. |
It is the qualifier to the main rule which simply says "denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)"
You do not have to be in control of the ball.
It even states further on that factors to be considered include the likelihood of gaining control of it- from which we can clearly infer that you do nto have to be in control of the ball at the time. Which means ref watch has invented an interpretation which is not in the laws. Which is my point. Refs as a group have been doing this for some time. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ref Watch on 18:06 - Jan 19 with 309 views | Exiled2Surrey |
Given we haven't heard anything from the EFL today, can we conclude that they are taking no further action on the incident where Furlong employed robust positioning of the upper body in front of Cantwell? | | | |
| Ref Watch on 19:02 - Jan 19 with 280 views | Dennyx4 |
| Ref Watch on 18:06 - Jan 19 by Exiled2Surrey |
Given we haven't heard anything from the EFL today, can we conclude that they are taking no further action on the incident where Furlong employed robust positioning of the upper body in front of Cantwell? |
I am not expecting to hear anything, however it can take a while for the FA to look at incidents.
Norwich suffered from this last season, McLean v QPR - believe it took over a week for the charge to land. | | | |
| Ref Watch on 19:16 - Jan 19 with 265 views | armchaircritic59 |
Apart from Offsides, just scrap Very Annoying Replays, completely. Absolutely nothing wrong with technology if it adds to the game. Unfortunately this doesn't. | | | |
| Ref Watch on 19:19 - Jan 19 with 261 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
You’ve a very selective interpretation of what is written, and what you quote. Did you purposely miss out that it needed to be likely?
I can see you’re not open to alternatives, but it’s obviously not as clear-cut as you make out, and understandable why on Ref Watch they could have a different interpretation to you. Your first post effectively said the laws didn’t allow for their conclusion, didn’t have any stipulation about the ball being under control and that they made it up. So no, your premise was wrong.
I’ll leave at that. | | | |
| Ref Watch on 19:26 - Jan 19 with 250 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ref Watch on 19:19 - Jan 19 by SuffolkPunchFC |
You’ve a very selective interpretation of what is written, and what you quote. Did you purposely miss out that it needed to be likely?
I can see you’re not open to alternatives, but it’s obviously not as clear-cut as you make out, and understandable why on Ref Watch they could have a different interpretation to you. Your first post effectively said the laws didn’t allow for their conclusion, didn’t have any stipulation about the ball being under control and that they made it up. So no, your premise was wrong.
I’ll leave at that. |
Not selective at all.
It clearly states that a factor is the likelihood of gaining possession of the ball. Ergo one does not need to be IN possession.
They DID make it up , because there is nothing in the laws about having to be in possesion. Nothing.
You are simply arguing that black is white at this point. | |
| |
| Ref Watch on 19:32 - Jan 19 with 244 views | Exiled2Surrey |
| Ref Watch on 19:02 - Jan 19 by Dennyx4 |
I am not expecting to hear anything, however it can take a while for the FA to look at incidents.
Norwich suffered from this last season, McLean v QPR - believe it took over a week for the charge to land. |
Understandable - they have so much else to do… | | | |
| Ref Watch on 20:25 - Jan 19 with 207 views | farkenhell |
Sorry to interject, but surely you must accept that a player is less likely to gain control of the ball if he hasn't actually received the ball at the time of the offence?
I take your point that the rule/guidance that has been quoted doesn't say "no possession = no red card", but by the same token, the absence of possession is clearly a factor to be taken into account. | | | |
| Ref Watch on 20:27 - Jan 19 with 202 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ref Watch on 20:25 - Jan 19 by farkenhell |
Sorry to interject, but surely you must accept that a player is less likely to gain control of the ball if he hasn't actually received the ball at the time of the offence?
I take your point that the rule/guidance that has been quoted doesn't say "no possession = no red card", but by the same token, the absence of possession is clearly a factor to be taken into account. |
The point is simple. People are trying to argue that ref watch is right to say that because he wasnt in possession its not a red offence.
The laws dont say that, and actively envisage situations where the player is not in control of the ball. So that is wrong.
In this instance, he is very likely to have scored if not pushed over. | |
| |
| Ref Watch on 21:06 - Jan 19 with 180 views | farkenhell |
| Ref Watch on 20:27 - Jan 19 by redrickstuhaart |
The point is simple. People are trying to argue that ref watch is right to say that because he wasnt in possession its not a red offence.
The laws dont say that, and actively envisage situations where the player is not in control of the ball. So that is wrong.
In this instance, he is very likely to have scored if not pushed over. |
I agree with your first two paragraphs. I don't agree with your final paragraph. I disagree that he was very likely to have scored, based upon the position of the ball in relation to the players when the push occurred. It is less likely that he would have gained control of the ball (and then scored) by virtue of the fact that he wasn't in possession of the ball when the "foul" took place.
That's my take on it anyway. | | | |
| Ref Watch on 21:15 - Jan 19 with 167 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Ref Watch on 21:06 - Jan 19 by farkenhell |
I agree with your first two paragraphs. I don't agree with your final paragraph. I disagree that he was very likely to have scored, based upon the position of the ball in relation to the players when the push occurred. It is less likely that he would have gained control of the ball (and then scored) by virtue of the fact that he wasn't in possession of the ball when the "foul" took place.
That's my take on it anyway. |
The ball came right across his path.
But that is a matter of judgment for a ref.
What is plainly wrong is for ref watch to say he wasnt on the ball so it cant be a red. | |
| |
| Ref Watch on 09:15 - Jan 20 with 78 views | soupytwist |
Depends somewhat on how you define 'opportunity'. Does the player have an opportunity to score a goal by virtue of the fact that they are (or will be) standing in front of the goal with only the keeper to beat and the ball is coming directly to them? Yes, that scenario is a clear goal scoring opportunity.
In my view, the only reason that the one involving Furlong and Ohashi doesn't deny the Blackburn player the opportunity to score a goal is because Furlong pushes him over before the pass across the box is made. Therefore you can't be sure whether the pass would be blocked by Matusiwa or been accurate enough for Ohashi to receive and likely score.
Whether Furlong should have been dismissed seems to depend on whether the offence was committed in the penalty area or not according to redrickstuhaart's quoting of the law. And it wasn't, just. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
