Ok so this is a weird game to set up a thread for, but I thought this clip was interesting and I don’t see anywhere else to post this, so her goes! I am interested in the DOGSO red card from this match, see the clip here: https://dubz.co/v/qpj5s7 We can all agree that the attacker had an obvious goal scoring opportunity when he was fouled by Bernat. However, get gets up and continues running, and still has an obvious goal scoring opportunity after being fouled. Al-Jassim clearly should have played advantage, of course. He blew the whistle instead, while the attacker had an obvious goal scoring opportunity. But, speaking in theory, is the red card correct? Similarly, would the red card be correct in a hypothetical scenario where Al-Jassim tried to play advantage, but the attacker, who had an obvious goal scoring opportunity, stopped running after the ball to try to ensure that a red card was shown? I would argue that the answer to both these questions is no, a yellow card should be shown instead. The foul does not DENY an obvious goal scoring opportunity in either case. Do others agree? Or disagree? Feel free to discuss!
Firmly in the disagree camp. I think it's an easy read card no matter what. In the actual sequence, sure, Al-Jassim should wait maybe another half second just to be sure. But the attacker actually stumbles again and goes to ground by the time things are whistled. I am not sure an OGSO would have existed by the time the proverbial dust settled there and the defender kept running back. At the very least, a deliberate foul on a breakaway would have caused an attacker to fall to the ground twice--even if the OGSO still existed, it would have been much less of one than initially existed because the defender would be that much closer. As to the hypothetical... yes, red card. Law 5 says advantage is about what is most beneficial to the attacking team. It literally says that the attacking team "will benefit" from the advantage. If an attacker stops after experiencing this foul, he's telling you quite clearly that he will not benefit to play on and/or that the red card is much preferable to what he views as remaining in the OGSO. It's not your job to substitute that judgment and decide that, no, he's wrong and should have played on. Let's not lose sight of how cyncial this foul was. Bernat is compeltely beat for pace and is approaching the ball at the wrong angle, insofar as his ability to recover goes. Once the attacker is past him, he is gone (without the foul, of course). It would be perverse to excuse the red card just because, after a stumble or two (or even a fall to ground), the attacker still technically might have an OGSO. This is the type of foul that DOGSO red cards were made for. We lose credibility when we go looking for excuses to find a different outcome. I mean, this is a friendly and al-Jasssim gave a red card... that should tell you how nailed on it was!
I have a few thoughts... My gut says this is DOGSO To be pedantic, the attacker's goal scoring opportunity is denied because Al-Jassim called the foul. So I think the red card is correct and easily justified. If he did not whistle the foul and played advantage, I think he has to show a yellow card. If you play advantage, it means the OGSO was not denied. Playing advantage is a stretch for such a tactical foul near midfield.
and falls again. I don't know that he was ever running as much as stumbling. Debatable. After the, second fall, he probably isn't even going to beat the defender that tripped him to the ball.
I mean have the past three World Cups gotten us so jaded that whenever we actually do see a red card, and no matter how obvious it is, we start to ask the question "was it too harsh, could that have been given yellow?" What is there to discuss here?
https://files.catbox.moe/h2xpdw.mp4 Clear RC. Contrary to the WC for Al-Jassim, perfect decision (including delayed whistle). Some Qatar 2022 themes (not much natural authority -> non-textbook player interactions; surely even getting the assignment in the first place as a Qatari) remain though.
45 yards out and to the side still meets the distance criteria for DOGSO? Everything else seemed to be met, but that is quite far. The fact that once free, he would have had zero defenders anywhere near getting close
When he gets fouled, there is only one defender on that half of the pitch and he is lying on the ground. No one would get to him if he hadn't been fouled. Also, her is maybe 20 yards off center. Hardly "to the side". This is exactly the type of play DOGSO was designed for. I through ball that but for being fouled, not a single defender would have had a chance to prevent a shot on goal.
You're right, not "to the side", but definitely not middle". So what is the approximate distance than when considering that D of the 4 Ds? No one is arguing if there is a last defender or if the directions is correct. When is it SPA versus DOGSO from X distance?
At the professional level, anywhere in the attacking half potentially meets the distance requirement. The whole point of the Ds is not to be a magic formula, but to help recognize what an OSGO is. When it quacks like a duck isn’t the time to get over analytic about a magic number of yards that is enough. This is obviously an OSGO in any rational meaning of the phrase.
I get that there is some flexibility. I think write ups of DOGSO consideration need to add a bit more to that. The consideration really isn’t distance then, but whether the defenders that weren’t between the ball and the goal have a likely chance of catching up to help defend.
Well, it really does include distance. But that consideration of distance does vary significantly by level of play, and is impacted by the other considerations as well. Keep in mind that IFAB has never said they have equal weight, but that they are criteria that "must be considered." The distance inter-relates with all three of the other considerations. In the PA, the closeness of defenders is going to be less significant than at the halfway line. In a lower skilled game, possession at the halfway line isn't going to be an OGSO. (Aside: it was USSF that said that all 4 of the "Ds" must be obvious. As best I can tell, nowhere else in the world was it looked at that way, and certainly wasn't and isn't set out that way in the LOTG.)
This this this. I hated that in the days of ATR, you would have an attacker cut towards the flag to maneuver around a keeper and people would literally not give DOGSO because of "Direction of play". So frustrating. Also, people use the 4D's looking for a reason not to give DOGSO. That's not the purpose nor the intent.