| Diop’s foul…Christ ref 22:09 - Oct 23 with 2585 views | TresBonne |
Ok I put up a post on here last week saying I couldn’t believe the Leif foul wasn’t given at Citeh.
Jesus Christ, the Diop one. How did the referee not give that as a foul originally? Genuine beggars belief, I actually cannot see what he was thinking happened there. He was soft all night but that is something else. |  |
| |  |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 12:07 - Oct 24 with 229 views | HighgateBlue |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 09:21 - Oct 24 by franz_tyson |
I thought it was a definite red.
Not getting into the details of who was covering, but it looked out of control and dangerous. He scythed him and took him out. We always get told that tackles which are out of control will be punished. Just looked a red. |
I agree. It's the sort of challenge for which you've seen a red given anywhere on the pitch (endangers safety/excessive force). That's highly debatable. A yellow seems right if it wasn't DOGSO.
But in that location at that moment I was gobsmacked that once VAR intervened it wasn't a DOGSO red. We'd have been pretty miffed if the roles were reversed.
Not having a go at Diop, no malice intended, I just think he got it wrong, trying to give his all for the cause.
Again we showed fight and temperament on a blustery and difficult side against a side who are no mugs.
The sort of game for which the following phrase was invented: "we go again!" |  | | |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 12:29 - Oct 24 with 197 views | HighgateBlue |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 01:55 - Oct 24 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
I’m obviously honest with my assessments when it comes to bias, like the Maeda one against Fulham I thought was a true 50/50 not a nailed on.
However, tonight that was not a red. He might get a shot off at an angle, Davis likely blocks it anyway. Bold and correct decision upon review, clear goal sorting opportunity is not just a shot in the box, he wasn’t clean through. |
It is true that Davis' position and possible future actions are relevant (see the extract from the laws at the bottom of this post).
But the 4 matters that must be considered are to be considered /in order to conclude whether there was a denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity/. They are not to be considered in order to work out the chances of a goal being /scored/. The test is not: if a goal probably wouldn't have been scored, there is no DOGSO. I think you have to pause the action at the point of the offence (or possibly at the start of the movement that constitutes an offence) and consider at that point whether there is an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Concluding that Davis "probably" or "likely" blocks it is not sufficient to make it not a DOGSO in my view. There would have been a real chance (or opportunity) for the attacker to score a goal, and that was denied by the offence. The keeper might have saved it. But there was an opportunity.
I think we were lucky, and I wouldn't be surprised if a panel comes out and says that it disagrees, or at least that there is a split decision.
I know we're getting into highly quasi-legalistic territory here, but I must confess to being slightly unsure what the relevant counterfactual is - you must compare what actually happened, with what would have/might have happened 'but for' the offence. But in the 'but for' hypothetical, what must we assume that Diop does? Is he (a) not there at all, (b) present, but hypothetically ineffectual, (c) present and hypothetically reasonably effective, (d) present such as to prevent the attacker from running at full speed, but otherwise ineffective? To put it in simple terms, I can understand the argument that if he gets across and stands his ground, he maybe forces the attacker out wider.
Either way, I think in this particular case, Diop had formed the view that the attacker had an obvious goalscoring opportunity, and that was why he lunged in quite so dramatically. Had Walton been up at the other end (following a corner for example), I think you'd struggle to say that there was no obvious goalscoring opportunity on the grounds that Davis is likely to get back. The action was relatively central and close to goal, and until Diop comes on the scene the attacker has full control of the ball. Personally I think he had an obvious opportunity to get a shot away, and that shot had a sufficiently high prospect of going in, to constitute an "opportunity".
Anyway, I'm generally happy to let refs make these decisions so as not to need to turn football into an exam. As much as I like an exam.
---
"The following must be considered:
- 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 and attackers" | | | |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 12:38 - Oct 24 with 182 views | pointofblue |
My bigger frustration is Diop ended up making that foul because, IIRC, for the third time in two home games O'Shea got caught being cute at the back and got punished for it. There's a time and a place.
I can only think the ref thought Diop's touch made the ball go wide rather than McAtee's. I thought Bramall was one of the strong up and coming refs but I'm not sure whether the VAR intervention at Sunderland knocked his confidence tonight because he was all over the place. Admittedly, the two flat ball scenarios didn't help though I'm not sure why Forest got it back after the first? And we seemed happy to try playing on with it. I guess I'm being both biased and churlish but I wish he'd played on to the end of the attack then had the ball replaced. |  |
| |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 12:54 - Oct 24 with 164 views | mellowblue |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 12:29 - Oct 24 by HighgateBlue |
It is true that Davis' position and possible future actions are relevant (see the extract from the laws at the bottom of this post).
But the 4 matters that must be considered are to be considered /in order to conclude whether there was a denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity/. They are not to be considered in order to work out the chances of a goal being /scored/. The test is not: if a goal probably wouldn't have been scored, there is no DOGSO. I think you have to pause the action at the point of the offence (or possibly at the start of the movement that constitutes an offence) and consider at that point whether there is an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Concluding that Davis "probably" or "likely" blocks it is not sufficient to make it not a DOGSO in my view. There would have been a real chance (or opportunity) for the attacker to score a goal, and that was denied by the offence. The keeper might have saved it. But there was an opportunity.
I think we were lucky, and I wouldn't be surprised if a panel comes out and says that it disagrees, or at least that there is a split decision.
I know we're getting into highly quasi-legalistic territory here, but I must confess to being slightly unsure what the relevant counterfactual is - you must compare what actually happened, with what would have/might have happened 'but for' the offence. But in the 'but for' hypothetical, what must we assume that Diop does? Is he (a) not there at all, (b) present, but hypothetically ineffectual, (c) present and hypothetically reasonably effective, (d) present such as to prevent the attacker from running at full speed, but otherwise ineffective? To put it in simple terms, I can understand the argument that if he gets across and stands his ground, he maybe forces the attacker out wider.
Either way, I think in this particular case, Diop had formed the view that the attacker had an obvious goalscoring opportunity, and that was why he lunged in quite so dramatically. Had Walton been up at the other end (following a corner for example), I think you'd struggle to say that there was no obvious goalscoring opportunity on the grounds that Davis is likely to get back. The action was relatively central and close to goal, and until Diop comes on the scene the attacker has full control of the ball. Personally I think he had an obvious opportunity to get a shot away, and that shot had a sufficiently high prospect of going in, to constitute an "opportunity".
Anyway, I'm generally happy to let refs make these decisions so as not to need to turn football into an exam. As much as I like an exam.
---
"The following must be considered:
- 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 and attackers" |
one of the criteria for an obvious goal scoring opportunity is the movement towards the goal. Williams last touch was a little heavy and the ball was going away from goal. I think he would have been struggling to score especially when you add in Leif's covering run, I think the ref (eventually) got it right. The tackle itself was a bit reckless but only a yellow to me. | | | |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 19:19 - Oct 24 with 103 views | armchaircritic59 |
I think that was what you call a " wipe out "! |  | | |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 19:21 - Oct 24 with 100 views | Ipswich4lifeUK |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 09:32 - Oct 24 by DanTheMan |
Yeah, in no way was that dangerous, he's slid in but his feet were down and McAtee makes contact with his body, not his legs.
Foolish for sure as it could have been a red quite easily but right decision in the end. |
Secon thus!  |  | | |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 19:21 - Oct 24 with 100 views | Ipswich4lifeUK |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 09:32 - Oct 24 by DanTheMan |
Yeah, in no way was that dangerous, he's slid in but his feet were down and McAtee makes contact with his body, not his legs.
Foolish for sure as it could have been a red quite easily but right decision in the end. |
Second thus! | | | |
| Diop’s foul…Christ ref on 00:06 - Oct 25 with 42 views | JustAnotherOne |
VAR recommend a review for a possible red card for DOGSO. DOGSO being an allowed reason to conduct a review.
At which point, the ref undertakes an onfield review and in effect this allows the referee to re-ref the passage of play. The ref has taken the view that a foul has occurred, but in his view of what his seen it isn’t a DOGSO offence due to the touch taken by McAtee but a foul has still occurred. Foul awarded and yellow card issued.
It’d be interesting to see if there was the ref’s camera view of the incident as this could show why the ref didn’t see what seems to be a blatant foul to everyone in the stands.
For what it’s worth, my opinion is very 50:50, which probably means it isn’t an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Therefore, it’s good to see the ref has applied the laws of the game and come to what in the guidance is the correct outcome even though we hardly ever see this implemented in such a way.
IFAB has the guidance at: https://www.theifab.com/laws/l
The nearest scenario is the below but still shows issuing a yellow is possible.
——-
A player makes a challenge which might endanger the safety of the opponent. The video assistant referee recommends an on-field review for a potential sending-off (red card, RC) offence because this incident was not seen by the referee. May the referee, after undertaking the review, decide to caution (yellow card, YC) the offender?
The final decision(s) must be based on what has been seen – therefore although the review was initiated for a red card offence if the referee's opinion, after watching the replays, is that the offence was a caution (YC) and not a sending-off (RC), then the referee must issue a YC. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
