I don’t blame you. DOGSO is extremely hard to recognize especially when there may be a defender back but he might not actually be in a position to defend the play I’m extremely impressed if a referee gets one of those right in real time. I don’t understand how they do it
Yeah that takes some very good judgment. I'm just glad to confirm that a keeper's handball is the same as a field player's handball in terms of how the rules are applied.
There is a myth that any GK HB outside the PA I’d a red. That is simply wrong, outside the PA, the GK is treated as any other player. BUT when the GK commits a HB outside the PA, there is not GK in the goal, so it is somewhat more likely that the HB will be DOGSO,
Zwayer handling Gibraltar vs San Marino -- what is a referee like Zwayer handling a game between these two?
Romania won so this is not me being bitter but this PK is BS This is a ref who really wanted to not take it back at 0:55s
Video is geoblocked. It's the first real incident here: I think more no penalty than penalty, but also the angle showed (at least in this clip) to prove no penalty isn't the best. You can't really tell how tucked the arm is. I'm kind of surprised it was sent down for review if that's the best available evidence but then also surprised a bit that he stuck with it because it does strongly hint at not punishable.
In Tuesday's Nations League match Croatia's goalkeeper is sent off after striking Poland's Robert Lewandowski in the right leg after clearing the ball. We all see this play numerous times, but 99% of the times, there is no contact with the onrushing forward. The few times there is contact and the onrushing forward is clipped by the follow-through, I am not seeing fouls issued. I was going to post this on game day, but I figured I was missing something. I've looked it again and can't see how this is different than any other play where a keeper or defender clear a ball out. Possibly folks will post similar videos showing similar plays where a guy is sent off under similar circumstances and am welcome to see them and that's what this board is for. Yes, the foot is up high after the ball is kicked on the follow-through, but this still seems like a normal play for a player who is trying to clear the ball far. If I'm wrong, I am all ears. Is the player supposed to kick the ball out of bounds for fear he may strike the onrushing forward? I'm not sure that's the answer. As an aside, there is a history of people accusing folks here of being homers when posting specfic plays and I am far from being one. I'm am not a lot fun at watch parties over the years where I have to correct folks thinking we're getting hosed on calls and have to explain in detail what happened . If this is indeed a red card, give your feedback without personal attacks. The play stars at 21:40 on this YouTube video link.
4:31 from the video in Salzburg yesterday (Makkelie) is worth a look: You have a pretty clear foul to the back from the captain, #91, which has all the hallmarks of deliberate DOGSO. That then leads to the collision with the keeper that maybe is unfortunate and at least somewhat caused by the push to the back, but you can make a case for SFP on the goalkeeper there, too. And to top it off, the goalkeeper deliberately handles to save the ball outside the penalty area. Makkelie gives the red card for the handball, which I suppose is the easiest to sell and the only one that cannot be questioned at all. But the whole scene raises a number of questions: 1) If not for the handball, does Makkelie have anything else? Maybe this is all a wait and see, but I'm not terrible convinced. And if he doesn't have anything, is the VAR intervening for DOGSO on #91? 2) It's obviously easier to send off the goalkeeper, but is it correct? And to that end, if the VAR has a clear DOGSO red card on #91, should he be alerting that to Makkelie? If you are only giving one red card here, which one is the more correct one to give? 3) It's the crazy classroom scenario where someone argues the unthinkable... but is that the rare situation where there are two separate DOGSOs and both players should be red carded? I would normally say that's crazy and detatched from reality. And I still essentially think that. But these are two deliberate and pretty blatant DOGSO fouls. It's really hard to justify either player staying on the field other than "I can only pick one" but technically there's nothing saying you only have to pick one...
I think the book answer is that if you're punishing the handball, then you've technically applied advantage to the first one, and it is downgraded to yellow.
That is a good point. I forgot that change negates some of these questions. I guess one could argue that there was no advantage and that the first foul denied an OGSO and then a second, different OGSO presented itself. But practically the second scoring chance seems better than the first, so that's not really something any referee should hang his hat on. The potential SFP by the goalkeeper raises questions about two reds, but the SFP is also the most dubious or difficult to sell, so again, that's not a route a referee needs or should want to follow. So I guess the only real question here is whether or not Makkelie had anything for the first foul and/or if the VAR would have done anything if he didn't.
So... by the logic @ManiacalClown is appropriately pointing out, #91 should have got a yellow for SPA, right? Interestingly he got booked seven minutes later for something else.
Like clown said, a failed DOGSO would downgrade to a yellow. But regardless, how could you have two DOGSO red cards in one play? Because the key word is DENIAL of goal scoring opportunity. I feel like you could only possibly have at most one denial of an opportunity, because by not calling the foul and therefore applying advantage, you’re saying that the GSO was not denied. I just can’t imagine any situation where two DOGSO reds could ever come out, and I guess the downgrade to a SPA YC makes sure that can never happen
For a long time, there was a heated debate in referee nerd circles (which most of the time manifested itself in hotel ballrooms at major tournaments or regional pro clinics) about whether or not OGSOs were team or individual player concepts. And if I recall correctly, this stemmed from the ATR which affirmatively said that OGSOs were individual concepts and that, consequently, you could have two DOGSOs back-to-back. As I implied initially, I always came down on the more practical side of things, which was that the ATR was too theoretical and no referee wanted to be in position to give two red cards on what many would consider the "same" play. But there are scenarios where it becomes tough. The classic example was a handball on the goal line to stop a shot, which then rebounded to a player who is about to score on an open net and gets dragged down by the shirt. Was there really an advantage? No. So the handball is the red card, right? But what do you do with the second miscreant? He gets... nothing? Or if you do apply advantage and punish the second one... stopping the ball on the goal line is now only a yellow? Again, this is before the ability to downgrade and the Laws seemingly to clarify that DOGSO is a team concept. If we just say the Laws have now clarified things and the ATR was always wrong, great. But this was a real thing/question mark for a long time, as the Laws didn't really speak to it at all and there might have even been some hints in the I&G that the ATR was operating from.
Not that I think SFP would be a “realistic” outcome for either player here, but in theory, I have an easier time accepting SFP by the defender who pushed the attacker into the onrushing goalkeeper. He’s the one whose actions are primarily responsible for endangering the safety of the opponent. More “realistically,” I think you have to go red to the goalkeeper and yellow (for DOGSO with advantage, or for reckless pushing) by the defender here. I find it pretty unpalatable that the defender escapes without a card at all! What would have really been interesting is if the goalkeeper’s handball was only SPA instead, then I guess I would say DOGSO red for the defender and yellow for the goalkeeper would be the best outcome… but as you mentioned, this leads to the theoretical question of whether the obvious goal scoring opportunity was actually Denied by the defender.
Oh yeah. Imagine a scenario where a VAR had conclusive and unambiguous evidence that the shot wasn't on frame. Ha. That would have been fun.
[QUOTE="StarTime, post: 42605798, member: 354565" What would have really been interesting is if the goalkeeper’s handball was only SPA instead, then I guess I would say DOGSO red for the defender and yellow for the goalkeeper would be the best outcome… but as you mentioned, this leads to the theoretical question of whether the obvious goal scoring opportunity was actually Denied by the defender.[/QUOTE] In that s scenario, you aren’t playing advantage on the DOGSO, as you are giving that foul. So iff you are going with DOGso red, I think it’s nothing for the GK, as play is being stopped for the first foul.
Lawrence Visser currently officiating Galatasaray vs Tottenham in the UEL and currently has played advantages that have led to two goals. All in the first half. Have a great game so far.
Ajax vs Maccabi Tel Aviv: 19' Maccabi Tel Aviv's goal disallowed Maccabi Tel Aviv seems to make it 1-1 within five minutes, but after two minutes of studying images, the referee comes to the decision to disallow the goal. Daniele Rugani worked the inswinging cross into his own goal, but the Maccabi striker was still offside in his back and so the goal was disallowed. How is it possible for an own goal to be cancelled for off side?
I would imagine the attacker was in OSP when the cross was made and he challenged the defender for the ball leading to the goal.
2:36: Basically exactly as you describe. Only minor deviation is that he's offside from the re-direct in the penalty area and not the original cross, but no way you could have known that, given the text claims the own goal came straight from the cross.
It's two minutes from the goal to the (correct) offside decision. It's 40 seconds from when the referee signals an OFR to the decision, approximately ten seconds of which is the referee jogging to the monitor and waiting for it to be set up. The characterization that the referee needed a lot of time to make this call is silly.
UEFA...smh Why Spanish referees have been banned from the Champions League for the last two rounds - Yahoo Sports