My bad, I've been in a discussion on Twitter over this and going the DOGSO route too. It seems the obvious way to go but you're right, the opportunity wasn't denied, only a goal may or may not have been. While I understand fans want a red here, I (not a ref, but read enough here to be able to think about what the ref is looking at) look at just the one angle in the replay and think "from that angle there's no way I'm even somewhat confident that ball is going in the net" so it shouldn't be a red. Now if I see another angle (say from behind one of the goals) I could easily change my mind.
My thing on this play is, does it not seem to reward the GK for obviously cheating to stop what maybe could be a goal, but we're saying if you cheat like this and the shot is far enough from the goal, you get a pass... I think football expects the red as you say.
Howard Webb chimes in: Here’s the text I just got from PRO referees GM Howard Webb on the ruling that kept Nashville goalkeeper Joe Willis in the game last night. pic.twitter.com/dNO1KTwjY4— Subscribe to GrantWahl.com (@GrantWahl) March 1, 2020 Why was the situation “denial of a goal” and not also “denial of a goal-scoring opportunity”? Howard Webb just texted me this: pic.twitter.com/LR5ZjPbM9o— Subscribe to GrantWahl.com (@GrantWahl) March 1, 2020 Howard Webb texts one last time today on the Joe Willis call. pic.twitter.com/nBcdumbS11— Subscribe to GrantWahl.com (@GrantWahl) March 1, 2020
I think in the era of "if in doubt go yellow even if the studs went into the ankle", I can see why this was given as a yellow. But just with the Man Utd/Brugge incident, they sure do feel like red cards.
I think this is really where DOGSO has lost its soul. It started out to punish cynical fouls, and we completely removed the cynical nature of the foul from the calculus. (Except to the extent you interpret the PK yellow/red as a proxy for cynical.) I'd really like to see it added as a factor--give refs the aiblity to send off for cynical plays that may not fully meet the 4 Ds. Yup.
One of the fun part of this thread of discussion is understanding the distinction in the standard. Denying a goal or denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity can apply to either handling or a foul. Denying a goal only applies to handling, and means that without the handball, the goal would be scored. When I think of DOGSO, I think of what else does the attacker have to do to score a goal. With DOGSO, the attacker needs a touch to score or assist a goal. The foul took away that opportunity. Handling can stop the flight of the ball into the net, denying the attacking team a goal that they didn’t need to take further to score. I am not sure of the practical implication of this distinction, but can appreciate the need to make it. All I can say is that delving into the finer points of a discussion like this help me understand the bigger picture.
Really good early DOGSO call in the Columbus v NYCFC match today. Third minute of play. Video highlight here: https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...w-sc-vs-new-york-city-fc/details/video/222846
This is a purely academic question but that has never stopped us from discussing something before! In the Montreal-New England match, a goal was disallowed after an OFR and play was restarted with an IFK, so the call was offside. Here's the incident here: https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...s-new-england-revolution/details/video/222527 The offside position by the goal-scorer is difficult to discern with certainty from this angle, but I think we can and should stipulate it exists. My question is this: When the ball last touches a New England teammate, it is from hand. The ball is headed and then deflects (accidentally--but that doesn't matter any more) off the hand of the attacker. It then goes to the goal-scorer. So, should the officiating team be punishing the offside (IFK) or the handball (DFK)? When I first asked myself, I thought the answer was easy. DFK is more severe, so we punish the handball. But the handball isn't a punishable offence until it leads to a goal-scoring chance and there is not goal-scoring chance until the goal-scorer receives the ball. And, once he receives the ball, he's offside and there isn't actually a goal-scoring chance. So I went back to IFK/offside being correct. I'm still not sure which outcome is technically correct, though. This CLEARLY doesn't matter for any practical purpose. But it is an interesting little paradox created by the need to contingently punish accidental attacking handballs.
I think you're right - the IFK is the right (technical) answer. It's not about the level of punishment: a ball going to an offside player isn't a goal-scoring chance. Analogy - similar situation - head to hand, and the ball goes out for a throw-in. We don't reverse back, think "well, there was a goal-scoring chance until the ball went out," and give the DFK - it's just a throw-in.
Maybe I've always misunderstood or maybe it's changed, but I always thought the DOGSO-H came down to did the handling stop the ball from going into the net. The 4 D's were specifically for DOGSO-F.
USSF confused this immeasurably via unnecessary over-instruction. Because, bizarrely, they treated handling that amounted to DOGSO as "DOGSO-F." There was nothing in the Laws to support that argument or distinction--in fact, it was an instruction that was denying the plain reading of the LOTG text. But in an effort (I guess) to make things simple for people, they did this so that DOGSO-H became only exactly what you describe in your post. Of course, there was always the problem of this being a patently incorrect interpretation of the Laws. There were plenty of arguments/debates about this on this board. But when it comes down to it, the LOTG have had DOGSO for fouls (other than handling) and then DOGSO for handling PLUS the distinct standard of "denying a goal" via handling.
DOG-H is whether the ball went in the net--that is denying a goal rather than an OGSO. For a time USSF muddled this by, essentially saying there was just DOG-H, not DOGSO-H. Then they said that handling could trigger DOGSO-F, rather than H. But at the end of the day, I think it is now clear that there is DOG-H, which applies to balls going into the goal, and there is DOGSO--and really the criteria for DOGSO don't depend on whether it is a hand ball or other foul.
Howard Webb and @MassachusettsRef both agree...so I suppose they are right. But that doesn't mean we have to like it Drew is incredibly smart, and I'm wondering if his (bad) answer is just phrasing things in a way the typical fan could understand. Because the typical fan is going to be bugged at Webb's right answer, and can at least stomach Drew's bad answer.
I guess I have to concede to the fact that the Laws, as written, say it's a yellow card and not a red. It's still nonsense. This has to be changed. The only reason the words in the Law don't make this a red card is because it fell into the zone of "you can't think of everything." This is a completely cynical play to prevent a goal by a player who knew damn well what he was doing.
Just to go back to the tweet... Re: the non-red card on the handball, #ATLUTD players were told that there were two defenders behind Willis that would have been able to stop the goal. Ref was very sure of himself and all four refs were in agreement. #MLS #PRO— Doug Roberson (@DougRobersonAJC) March 1, 2020 1. It’s heresay... the reporter wasn’t quoting what Drew said, but what players heard. 2. And more importantly, what the players heard was that the defenders would have been able to stop the goal, not an opportunity. I have no problem believing that a defender running back into the penalty area has a reasonable chance to get to a ball from where it was struck. That ball would have flown 50+ yards. It wasn’t a rocket from 20 yards out.
I think what many struggle with here is the degree of 'deliberate'. There is, "my arm was away from my body when it shouldn't have been but, yeah, it's handling" and there is "my main action on this play was to knowingly and illegally use my hands in attempt to stop, at minimum, a promising attempt at goal."
Out of curiosity, what part of the LOTG or what clarification could be cited for this? It would be helpful to explain to people if we could point to something.
Which part? The LOTG themselves is the critical language for this type of play. It's really all you need, because it's very clear. And it's been quoted above. The whole part about denying a "goal OR goal-scoring opportunity." Explaining USSF's previously incorrect and essentially unnecessary instruction/distinction about DOGSO-H vs. DOGSO-F? I can't think of a reason you would ever need to get into that with a fan. It was really just a ref-nerd thing that caused some problems.
What I meant is the part where this is only "did a hand ball stop an obvious goal". People keep going back to the opportunity part of that and claiming red, but its been established that the "opportunity" part doesn't apply. I mean, its obvious to me now that its been explained, but seems like a bunch of fans don't find it obvious.
And they aren't going to. It takes the understanding that Webb set out in his answers to Grant Wahl, and separating DOG from DOGSO. Just because it is clear doesn't mean there is an easy way to make obvious to someone who starts by talking about "last man."
Got it. I don't think you're going to find anything more explicit than what's in the Laws. Though it's the way it's been taught to professional referees and it's pretty clear based on the texts of the Laws, I can't think of a specific document that literally says "once the shot is taken, the opportunity is over." It's just something someone should be able to discern from the way the Laws are written. Webb's explanation is something to point to, but I'm sure the more cynical fans would say he's covering for his referees, so that may not help with the audience you're dealing with. The best I can come up with is that the LOTG also say an aspect that must be considered for DOGSO is "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball." Obviously, the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball when you just took a shot on net is low--approaching zero in many cases and, in this particular case, definitely zero. That's a backdoor way of making a much simpler practical argument (that the opportunity is over once the shot is taken), but if you're dealing with someone who is more lawyerly-like in their arguments, it might be helpful.
There's a non-zero chance Webb read my tweet where I referred to the shot as the opportunity and decided he liked that phrasing.
There was a potential penalty in the Portland v. Minnesota game that was ignored by both Elfath and VAR that I'd like your perspective on. The incident can be seen in here Instant Replay, I think there was another angle or two in the broadcast and I'm sure it shows that the keeper made contact with Mora's foot without making any kind of contact with the ball. Is this not a penalty? I thought in realtime that Elfath just missed the contact but when VAR didn't chime in I figured I must be wrong, but I don't really understand why, especially given the penalty Elfath actually gave later in the game. Anyone care to share their thoughts? Hmm, I think I can embed the video, let's find out (yes I can, but the link takes you directly to the incident and the embedded video does not. It's at 2:36: