The defender running in (further from camera) was within playable distance to the attacker and the ball, removing one of the four necessary D's from DOGSO. Greg Barkey explains it pretty solidly. THAT said, in real time and only one look, a referee could easily judge that DOGSO red and not be wrong. Only VAR saves that from being a possibility.
@@sephlar Respectfully disagree as at point of initial foul contact the defender from the right was not within playing distance of the ball. The question of whether the defender from the right could have “potentially” played the ball after point of initial foul contact to me is irrelevant. For me all criteria for DOGSO were met to lead to the initial call, at the minimum I do not see enough to warrant a rescinding of the red card due to a “clear and obvious error”.
Ive been surprised as well, so I looked at the guidance sheet, but I still agree. In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four elements must be present: • Location and number of Defenders : not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul • Distance between the offense and the goal : the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal scoring opportunity • Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball: the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball • General direction of play: the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed The focus should be on Point 1, as 2,3,4 are definitily the case. The defender on the left (closer to the camera/video perspecitve) is to far away to react. So theres only one defender between the foul and the goal (right one/further), which is why it is even after reviewing the rules still a red card for me. So exactly what you said. Maybe somebody else can explain me what I understand wrong.
@@Menessy27 My comment on initial foul contact was related to the DOGSO question; specifically the proximity of the defender. The restart is not in dispute - penalty kick as foul continued in penalty area.
The first one, The ball was completely controlled by the attacker and next to his feet the whole time, he would've had a clear shot on goal if the defender didn't hold him. The other defender wasn't close enough or changing the outcome enough for me to change it to yellow, i see red
@@davidhemsworth4098 unmarked, central, and behind the play. Again though, if you pull up the landing gear you can’t make a backwards pass anymore than you can make a forward shot.
@@BintonB his arm is raised at or above head height, so the other considerations are moot. Ultimately, the defender took a risk by having his arm in that position (which cannot be called a natural position). The risk did not pay off (or it did, because it prevented a shot of goal).
Give the refs a dial where they can fast forward or rewind. Should cut the on-field review time by 50% and make the refs happy.
I think it’s funny how in the 1st one the red player just lays on the ground.
First clip. I give red there every time of day. Guess that’s why I have not been called up to officiate at National (PRO) level.
The defender running in (further from camera) was within playable distance to the attacker and the ball, removing one of the four necessary D's from DOGSO. Greg Barkey explains it pretty solidly. THAT said, in real time and only one look, a referee could easily judge that DOGSO red and not be wrong. Only VAR saves that from being a possibility.
@@sephlar Respectfully disagree as at point of initial foul contact the defender from the right was not within playing distance of the ball. The question of whether the defender from the right could have “potentially” played the ball after point of initial foul contact to me is irrelevant. For me all criteria for DOGSO were met to lead to the initial call, at the minimum I do not see enough to warrant a rescinding of the red card due to a “clear and obvious error”.
Ive been surprised as well, so I looked at the guidance sheet, but I still agree.
In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four
elements must be present:
• Location and number of Defenders : not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not
counting the defender who committed the foul
• Distance between the offense and the goal : the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal
scoring opportunity
• Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball: the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the
time of the foul to have continued playing the ball
• General direction of play: the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the
foul was committed
The focus should be on Point 1, as 2,3,4 are definitily the case.
The defender on the left (closer to the camera/video perspecitve) is to far away to react.
So theres only one defender between the foul and the goal (right one/further), which is why it is even after reviewing the rules still a red card for me.
So exactly what you said.
Maybe somebody else can explain me what I understand wrong.
@@brianscholz339 if you go by initial point of contact then it’s a free kick and not a penalty
@@Menessy27 My comment on initial foul contact was related to the DOGSO question; specifically the proximity of the defender. The restart is not in dispute - penalty kick as foul continued in penalty area.
The first one, The ball was completely controlled by the attacker and next to his feet the whole time, he would've had a clear shot on goal if the defender didn't hold him. The other defender wasn't close enough or changing the outcome enough for me to change it to yellow, i see red
It was controlled until he pulled up the landing gear and went to ground.
There's also an easy pass to a player completely unmarked and central. A very obvious GSO
@@davidhemsworth4098 unmarked, central, and behind the play.
Again though, if you pull up the landing gear you can’t make a backwards pass anymore than you can make a forward shot.
@@probablynotian before the offence occurred is the relevant point in time
@@davidhemsworth4098 before the offense occurred is irrelevant. It’s not DOGSO without the offense.
I dont agree with the first and last decisions
How can you disagree with the third decision? This is clearly a handling offense.
@@RyanPatrickOwens Not a lot of distance. Natural position when considering he is jumping
@@BintonB his arm is raised at or above head height, so the other considerations are moot. Ultimately, the defender took a risk by having his arm in that position (which cannot be called a natural position). The risk did not pay off (or it did, because it prevented a shot of goal).
@@BintonB A lot of people, including referees, don't understand this.
Too many I think statements. Clearly and obviously inept.