No but the ones that deny a goal scoring opportunity are. Do you actually believe he doesn't get a goal scoring opportunity here if not fouled?
Wrong question. Has to be an obvious GSO for a send off (c.f. the 4 Ds). I have no opinion, as I still haven't seen the clip. But there can be very different answers to the question of whether there is a GSO or an OGSO. A mere GSO makes yellow the right call.
Understood. I kind of assumed it was understood by all that way. It seems very obvious that there was a goal scoring opportunity. That why I asked if he actually believed there wasn't .
Fouls that deny GSO are not red cards. A shot from 25 yards out is a goal scoring opportunity but we don’t give red cards for those. At best this guy gets the ball in the corner on the goal line. He has quite a bit of ground to cover to have any angle at goal and with two other defenders in the area his best option is to actually pass. You’re ignoring the “obvious” part of DOGSO which you know you’re doing because you won’t even type it in your posts. Just another classic example of you popping up here to troll referees.
I actually think it was an OGSO, though I certainly here your arguments @incognitoind and understand why Kelly went yellow. But I think if you slow it down, the touch isn't that heavy at all. If the attacker successfully hurdles the keeper, he has the ball about 12-14 yards from the goal line, in the channel, with no goalkeeper and only one defender possibly able to square up to him (and even that is debatable). So if you show me this in a classroom, I end up voting red card. That said, the ball rolling over the goal line deep near the corner and the goalkeeper smartly sprinting back to make it look like he could recover quickly makes this difficult. So I understand why a referee goes conservative and says yellow--it was not a ridiculous decision live. And then once you go yellow, is there enough to say it was a clear OGSO? This debate suggests otherwise. So, ultimately, I can understand and accept the yellow while I think red is preferred. No matter what card came out, though, I don't see it as a huge miscarriage of justice. Two other interesting things related to this play. The first is that there was a suggestion of offside on the attacker. I haven't been able to confirm whether or not he was actually onside or offside. But if he was offside, this is another situation where a send down for OGSO would then result in no card and no foul. If a VAR had doubts about the offside or thought it was definitely offside, perhaps they are a little less likely to send down the foul for upgrade to red, as they then know the upgrade would never actually happen. It's two levels of subjectivity (the potential OGSO and the offside) being merged together with a "clear" standard for both. It's actually one of the more challenging situations a VAR team can face. The other interesting thing I find is that no one here has bothered complimenting Kelly for the DOGSO red he gave like eight minutes later. It was from a wide angle and it was a penalty. It was 100% right in my decision, but I also don't think it's a stretch to say some referees miss the OGSO nature or ignore the "no opportunity to play the ball" aspect there. So Kelly deserves credit. It also undermines, to whatever extent it might be implied above, any argument that Kelly wanted to avoid a DOGSO red late in that match.
Stop with the personal bullshit. If he doesn't get fouled, he is not in the corner. He is definitely getting a shot off. He might not score but he has an obvious opportunity to school. We can disagree on this but it isn't personal. When DOGSO is judged, it is judged as if the foul did not occur. If you look at the positions at the time of the foul, he is no where near the corner and has an OBIVIOUS GSO.
You are correct. It was a great call. There was no attempt to play the ball. Also, though it pains me to say, Twellman was correct. There is no consistency on this type of call.
"Correct" is one way to put it. I'd choose "sensationalist, unhelpful and reflexively anti-referee." Kelly made the right decision. It was a gutsy one. Twellman could have spent his time praising and explaining the call for those who, I'm sure, suspect it is only supposed to be yellow. Instead he immediately launched into a complaint about a different referee in a different competition on a different play. I mean, if he wanted to do that, he could have explained how MLS referees get that right but some CONCACAF referees don't. That would be helpful. Instead, no, it's blanket "referees are incosistent" nonsense. Is Kelly supposed to make the wrong call because some CONCACAF referees botched a red card a few nights ago? I don't get it.
I found a higher quality video of it and actually changed my mind. This is DOGSO. The defenders are too far back and for me over ride the concern for direction of play.
I just saw the potential DOGSO incident in the Philly game and, yeah, that's a red card. The main reason for the miss is due to the over instruction and the over-use of check box refereeing when it comes to DOGSO and SFP. Referees at the professional level now are basically expected to go through a list of considerations before giving any red cards. They have to check off a list and when you keep hammering and stressing those lists, referees will forget to take into the account the bigger picture. When every major decision now has a list, it's easy to use mental gymnastics to really justify almost decision now-a-days. It's a professional player 30 yards from goal that's going to shoot into an empty net if he doesn't get taken down. How more obvious can you get? He doesn't have the skill to roll the ball into an empty net? Kelly missed it and it happens. One thing that amazes me is that the same people on this forum are defending/excusing, or explaining as to why the referee only gave a yellow to the player that just kicked the shit out of an opposing player in the English Championship on the basis of "referee refereeing to player expectations, feel for the game, being flexible with the laws etc." Yet in the Philadelphia game, Kelly is completely not reading the room and not refereeing to player expectations and has no feel for the game and those same people are defending his decision due to a strict reading of the Laws of the Game.
I think I'm the one who is most guilty (or most vocal) in explaining the double yellow in the Championship. And I have stated I have red here. So, I think, I'm consistent in your eyes? At least insofar as player expectations go. Of course, I understand Kelly's yellow just as I would have understood VC red in the Championship. I think these are two good real life examples that the sport still can have shades of grey, even in the VAR era. Because, yeah, if it didn't, you'd have VAR reds in both cases.
I've been thinking lately about how we need to rethink the idea of playing the advantage when it comes to fouls/infractions in the area. I'm unsure what specific incident you're referring to here, but we have to recognize that the nature of the advantage is different at midfield than it is within the penalty area. Simply being able to get closer to the goal (or worse, towards the goal line) often isn't gaining an advantage; it's losing it because the angle is getting tighter. Also, in the half-second it takes for an attacker to keep their feet or regain control of the ball, often a goalkeeper can cross "no-man's land" and cut down the angle themselves because there was no chance for a quick shot or flick to catch the GK as they came off their line. (i.e. another advantage, another Paradise, lost) In many cases, we are playing an advantage, not the advantage. By the (normal?) logic of the Laws of the Game,we should probably stop play and award the penalty because the advantage left is less than the advantage of a foul being called. If, however, we don't want to do that (and by we I mean fans, referees, and the people who play the game), then I've suggested we need a change to the Laws of the Game — play the remaining advantage but then treat the foul the way we would unsporting behavior (which it is, in the spirit of things) and issue a yellow card (or even a red card in some OGSO cases) EVEN IF A GOAL IS SCORED. It is the best way to increase scoring and goal-scoring opportunities by calling the game within the Spirit of the Laws.
You missed the point of his comment. It was about playing advantage for a foul committed 100 yards from the goal the team was attacking. By playing advantage here, the referee tied his hands when the team then lost possession and a goal resulted for the team that committed the original foul. VAR could not intervene because the foul happened before the possession change reset the APP.
Oh, okay, it had to do with Philadelphia's 1st goal then(?) Thanks. I guess I'm just confused what his comment had to do with playing advantage in the penalty area. [add: Oh I think I get it. He said defensive penalty area. Allows play to go on, then turnover and boom, the team which committed a foul has the goalscoring opportunity] I'll strike-through my remaining point as it isn't germane to the point in question. (But it's still a good idea!) We do need to rethink the idea of playing "the" advantage in the box (which would be better described as playing "an" advantage in most cases) as our rationale for not awarding a PK when a player manages to keep their feet and some chance at goal. It would be cool.. We would have more goals scored. We would have more goal-scoring opportunities, which is more important even than the number of goals scored.
I believe the instruction in this area is essentially "advantage isn't impossible in this position, but it's also a huge risk so recognize the appropriate time and place," right? If Orlando takes the ball the length of the field and scores, Kelly looks like a genius and a visionary, but in the end he probably misjudged the opportunity. Still probably should have been bailed out with an offside? Do we have any good angles on that?
I've wondered about the offside too since they player seemed to be standing in front of the GK who immediately complained