Got a good one to open this thread in the Eredivisie. I haven't been able to find a video yet but watched it live speed on ESPN+. The original play happened at 11:31. Call on the field was a DOGSO-R for a foul outside of the area. After almost FIVE minutes, Bas Nijhuis overturns his original on-field decision. For me, this is the classic case of a call that should stand on the field whether it was a DOGSO or a SPA. There is a foul, and I think based on position on the field (attacker's left of the goal about 30 yards from the goal line or so) that it's a judgment call. But to take five minutes to finally get to an overturn doesn't say "clear and obvious error" to me. Also, should this title have "Non-England" in it?
I don't understand this. :53 start 1:27 shows simultaneous contact with foot/ball. After review, it was still called a foul, but not DOGSO. I don't understand why. Direct, # of Defenders, distance from goal, were all present. You can't use the fouling conduct to negate distance to ball. I don't understand Dutch. Any chance they mistakenly applied the "playing the ball standard" even though it was outside the area?
It's very clear that Nihuis visually says it's a yellow card because the direction of play was to the corner and not toward goal. Now, you can definitely question that judgment. I would, because the ball only goes to the corner because of the challenge (so the logic here has to be that the ball was legally played away initially but then the foul occurred, which is something). You could also question why it took so long. Or, if it needed to take that long, whether anything was clear and obvious. But there's no questioning why he changed his decision when you see what he indicates after showing yellow.
I can't tell that that is for certain what he is indicating, but if true, that is a very poor decision.
Well, there is Occam’s razor . . . Either that is what he is indicating, which indicates a debatable judgment call, or a ref (and his crew) at that level is grossly ignorant of one of the most fundamental aspects of DOGSO in the modern game. Hmm.
Right. And if it is the latter, at that point he's just motioning a clear arm toward the corner during a stoppage about a debatable DOGSO decision for no reason whatsoever. Because that makes all the sense in the world. Sigh.
Ok, but do you agree that play wasn't heading towards goal at the time of the foul? All I'm saying is if that is what he's hanging his hat on it is astonishing as there is no question play is heading towards goal.
I believe this is the moment of the touch put on the ball by the attacker, before the defender makes any contact with the foot So unless I’m looking at the video wrong, it appears that the attacker puts this touch towards the corner flag to avoid the sliding defender and then the defenders foot makes contact with the attacker. But I can’t really tell with 100% certainty if the defenders foot hitting the attackers foot is then what runs into he ball making it go off course like that
But it is well established that a touch to avoid a defender does not negate "Direction of play" if play is generally in the direction of goal.
I think the defender actually touches that ball and makes it go toward the corner and then he hits the attacker's foot. Admittedly, that one angle isn't completely conclusive, though.
But if the touch is so heavy and far enough away from goal that, by the time the attacker got to the ball, the scenario is somewhat reset (e.g., a defender or two could then be between him and goal) it should obviously matter. I think we're already going down unnecessary rabbit holes on this one. If the question is "what did he and the VAR call," the answer is clear. If the question is "is that a good decision," there are many reasons why it's probably not. But "they don't know the LOTG but I do" is not likely to be the conclusion.
I’m running the replay at 0.25 speed and I still can’t tell with either angle what actually happened, if the defender got the ball before the foot or not
My take on the whole thing (right or wrong) is that if this was in fact a foul, then it was DOGSO. At the very least, the call was defensible as DOGSO if a foul did occur. If there was a part of the play that was clearly and obviously wrong, it was that the challenge wasn’t a foul. At least from what I saw, I didn’t see any conclusive evidence (yes, I know that’s more NFL-speak) that the call on the field was wrong. Still seems to me that given all of the elements of the play and the time it took that the onfield call was not clearly and obviously wrong.
I watched the game and they showed more angles than are in the Ajax highlight clip. I think they showed four different views. It was a weird play to be sure. Nijhuis is renowned for not giving quick cards and he immediately gave a RC for an apparent DOGSO. Dutch VAR are very good and I think from their angle it warranted an OFR. The big question for me is why downgrade it to a YC; it's either a DOGSO or a not a foul. While I am an Ajax supporter, in this case it should have been a no foul after the OFR. there was a later no call on a hand ball in the box by Heerenveen which was the correct call despite the call from Ajax for a PK.
Because if they feel one of the “four Ds of DOGSO” (direction of play, distance to goal, number of defenders, and distance to ball/possession) is missing, it would become a yellow card for SPA, stopping a promising attack. In this situation, the assumption is that they felt the attacker put the touch in the ball that sent it a good distance towards the corner flag before the foul occurred, and so the “direction of play” part of DOGSO was no longer present
Why undercutting an aerial player fouls should be yellow cards https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/s/BuJqk0QBTi
I played hoops. Undercutting is a pet peeve of mine. Not sure it always should be a caution, but that to me is a good example of one that should be. Too often undercutting isn’t recognized as an offense at all—to those not thinking about it, they can see as the victim coming over the top.
The NBA has the landing zone rule that can even become a flagrant if it was done recklessly. Almost every time I see someone in soccer undercut an airborne player going for a header, the airborne player lands awkwardly and frequently on their back or in a heap on the ground. It is reckless and endangers the safety of the opponent so if these are always given as yellow cards, people would hopefully stop doing this very dangerous action. And when I’m talking about undercut fouls I’m taking specifically about when a player is already in the air going for a header and a defender comes over, usually backing directly into the player in the air
What's amazing to me is how many players don't seem to know that they are taking a step under an opponent and think that as long as they are on the ground, they are okay. "Am I not allowed to stand here?"
Whether it is careless or reckless is going to depend on a lot of factors — how high up is the opponent, how far into the opponent does the player go, at what height, at what speed. I’d hazard a guess to say that if you only see ones that are reckless, you are missing careless fouls that should be called. But I think a lot of refs don’t call this foul unless it becomes reckless.
A couple of questions about a couple of plays in the Brazilian league that I'd like opinions on. 1 - Goal invalidated due to offsides player being in the view of the goalie. Also there is a foul in the build up of the play but the offsides is what was considered. For me the player offsides interference is correct. 2 - Is this a handball nowadays ? Feels similar to Cucurella's hand in the Euros. At 10 seconds and 33 seconds. He tries to tuck his arm but he also jumps towards the ball initially with arm out a bit.
“Ref that was body!” No, pretty much any time I see an undercut foul like this I’m calling it a reckless foul, because I rarely see careless undercut fouls occur. It almost always ends with the airborne player landing on the undercutters back (a lot of times they even bend over to make sure the airborne player lands on their back) and hitting the ground in a heap.
To be honest, the one posted above actually looks careless but with a bad result. Granted we only have one angle from distance but it seems like he just happens to get under him as the player is going up and, I think, mostly has eyes on the ball after he checks to see where the guy he is challenging will be. I admit I could be wrong with another look, but to me it appears that he just sort of accidentally flips him as the opponent is going up, rather than recklessly or deliberately trying to undercut him without trying to play the ball. Anyway, put me in the camp of those who think this foul needs to be called better but, as usual, against any sort of blanket rule that makes it a caution.