A&H

Sheff We'd v Derby

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
The penalty....
Who's giving it? And if so, agree with the red card despite a keeper and a defender still to beat?
Lot heavier challenges been let go in the game, and for me he went down very easily. Don't think it was a foul for me.
 
The Referee Store
Agree with the red if the foul is given. My first reaction was PK, but a couple of the camera angles show how easily he goes down. With those I’d be going no foul, but in real time from the ref’s angle I would’ve given it.
 
I'm not giving that! More likely to wave play on and tell the striker to get up
Once the penalty was awarded the red had to follow due to no attempt to play the ball
The contact was not enough to justify the fall to the floor and there was just as much movement of the striker putting his arm back towards the defender as the other way round in my opinion
 
As a Wednesday fan I'm going to say very little other than...
Not a pen for me.
Clear red card once given.
If I was a derby fan I'd be really unhappy right now.
But, the league table rarely lies at the final whistle of the season.
 
JamesL said:
As a Wednesday fan I'm going to say very little other than...
Not a pen for me.
Clear red card once given.
If I was a derby fan I'd be really unhappy right now.
But, the league table rarely lies at the final whistle of the season.
Click to expand...
Exactly the same for me, even as an owl I don't think it was a foul, but once he gave it the only option could be a red card. Ball at feet, centre of the goal, no one close to being able to challenge him, it has to be DOGSO.

He takes a while to pull out the red. I suspect he initially didn't think it was DOGSO, but once he's played it back in his mind, or a colleague has spoken to him, he then realises it is. I honestly think he wouldn't have given the foul if he knew it was going to result in a red card.

Video here https://www.skysports.com/watch/vid...ent-is-this-derby-1-0-down-and-down-to-10-men
 
Messy, Goalkeeper right on the scene and a covering defender in behind. Cheating at the heart of things, but I think a Caution (SPA) would gave been OK
 
Still is the point of the “foul”. If he doesn’t kick the turf/fall over/get pushed (I use the last solely because that’s the on field call) then it is only the goalkeeper to beat if he shoots.

It’s not a challenge for the ball, and I agree therefore there’s no wriggle room here to go yellow.
 

Attachments

  • F30E5CBB-F2C1-4C38-9F53-7C7DE0527335.png
    F30E5CBB-F2C1-4C38-9F53-7C7DE0527335.png
    3.5 MB · Views: 16
Tealeaf said:
Still is the point of the “foul”. If he doesn’t kick the turf/fall over/get pushed (I use the last solely because that’s the on field call) then it is only the goalkeeper to beat if he shoots.

It’s not a challenge for the ball, and I agree therefore there’s no wriggle room here to go yellow.
Click to expand...
The still doesn't show the fast movement of players though. The fact that you need a still to 'prove' the DOGSO criteria suggests to me there's doubt. No doubt it's safer to go with a Dismissal if motivated by Observer points, but the whole incident is a shame for the game (both the integrity of the game and the unmerited outcome produced by the LOTG and Refereeing)
 
There just seems to be a culture to apply the 'very dodgy' DOGSO criteria very rigidly, whilst ironically turning a blind eye to many aspect of Law that are clear as day. Refereeing where DOGSO is concerned, is to ignore what the game expects and what represents a 'a fair outcome' in favour of applying DOGSO criteria that fail to turn an art into a science. Like I say, this whole incident is a shame on the game. The cheating is depressing and the reason we can't be without VAR, despite the value VAR saps from the game. That said, Lord knows whether VAR would have saved the day on this occasion
 
Big Cat said:
There just seems to be a culture to apply the 'very dodgy' DOGSO criteria very rigidly, whilst ironically turning a blind eye to many aspect of Law that are clear as day. Refereeing where DOGSO is concerned, is to ignore what the game expects and what represents a 'a fair outcome' in favour of applying DOGSO criteria that fail to turn an art into a science. Like I say, this whole incident is a shame on the game. The cheating is depressing and the reason we can't be without VAR, despite the value VAR saps from the game. That said, Lord knows whether VAR would have saved the day on this occasion
Click to expand...
I think the "game expects" a red card here. Any complaints from Davies himself, were at most, muted as he knew what he had done. Law tells us to consider ...
  • Distance. Inside the penalty area dead central.
  • Direction. Moving parallel along the edge of the penalty area, certainly not going away from goal.
  • Control. Has full control before the foul.
  • Defenders. No one close enough to challenge him, don't really think w can count the one who has gone back onto the goal line as he can't use his hands.
It ticks all 4, there really isn't any doubt. The only thing that gives me any doubt is that as a Wednesday fan I know that Johnson has absolutely no chance of shooting with his right foot, at least not getting it into the goal anyway, and would have to cut back onto his left, which is probably what made up his mind to go down, but the referee can't take that into account.
 
RustyRef said:
I think the "game expects" a red card here. Any complaints from Davies himself, were at most, muted as he knew what he had done. Law tells us to consider ...
  • Distance. Inside the penalty area dead central.
  • Direction. Moving parallel along the edge of the penalty area, certainly not going away from goal.
  • Control. Has full control before the foul.
  • Defenders. No one close enough to challenge him, don't really think w can count the one who has gone back onto the goal line as he can't use his hands.
It ticks all 4, there really isn't any doubt. The only thing that gives me any doubt is that as a Wednesday fan I know that Johnson has absolutely no chance of shooting with his right foot, at least not getting it into the goal anyway, and would have to cut back onto his left, which is probably what made up his mind to go down, but the referee can't take that into account.
Click to expand...
I know the criteria FGS, You're missing my point
It's the wrong outcome for the game. Cheating and questionably rigid DOGSO criteria resulting in a disaster scenario for the last game of the season with promotion at stake. The whole thing is very disappointing to watch and I'm in no way aligned with either team. It's the big moment VAR is needed for, but there's a huge doubt VAR would've fixed the problem anyway
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
I know the criteria FGS, You're missing my point
It's the wrong outcome for the game. Cheating and questionably rigid DOGSO criteria resulting in a disaster scenario for the last game of the season with promotion at stake. The whole thing is very disappointing to watch and I'm in no way aligned with either team. It's the big moment VAR is needed for, but there's a huge doubt VAR would've fixed the problem anyway
Click to expand...
It's you that is missing the point, both myself and @JamesL who are Wednesday fans have said it shouldn't have been a foul.

But once the foul is given it can only be a red card, you said the referee applied the DOGSO criteria very rigidly, what else is he supposed to do? When it ticks all four and you don't send off that is a 7.9 coming your way.
 
I think one of the reasons this one is so hard for the ref in real time is that it’s such a clear opportunity to score a goal - there’s a decent-sized gap between the keeper and defender into an empty net - that you’re not expecting a dive in that position.
 
David F said:
I think one of the reasons this one is so hard for the ref in real time is that it’s such a clear opportunity to score a goal - there’s a decent-sized gap between the keeper and defender into an empty net - that you’re not expecting a dive in that position.
Click to expand...
You've never seen Marvin Johnson try and kick the ball with his right foot, the only thing in danger would have been spectators sat behind the corner flag 😂

If that was on his left foot there is zero chance he would have gone over.
 
RustyRef said:
It's you that is missing the point, both myself and @JamesL who are Wednesday fans have said it shouldn't have been a foul.

But once the foul is given it can only be a red card, you said the referee applied the DOGSO criteria very rigidly, what else is he supposed to do? When it ticks all four and you don't send off that is a 7.9 coming your way.
Click to expand...
And my point has been entirely vindicated. There was doubt and so your binary view of this incident was wrong
Not that I've got much respect for Dermot Gallagher and the embarrassment of his RefWatch stint, but he categorically dismissed DOGSO on the basis that the GK was close enough to challenge for the ball and that the covering defender ultimately got back to cover the goal line

Thankfully, you weren't observing me, otherwise you'd have finished my season because your view of this incident was binary and mine was not. It's not Dermot's opinion that interests me as such, it's the wrongness associated with the whole incident which gets me
a) The cheating, b) The Ref being duped c) The dismissal which I think was supportable, but I would have gone yellow d) The impact on the season outcome e) The necessity for the scourge of VAR f) The fact that VAR may not have fixed the wrong decision(s) g) The binary view held by Observers on the Forum, so strongly held, it could have finished a Referee's season

None of it is good; except my pointing out that it was not a binary DOGSO - Doubt which can't be doubted given the red card has now been rejected by an ex-EPL R, albeit one I've no time for
 
Big Cat said:
And my point has been entirely vindicated. There was doubt and so your binary view of this incident was wrong
Not that I've got much respect for Dermot Gallagher and the embarrassment of his RefWatch stint, but he categorically dismissed DOGSO on the basis that the GK was close enough to challenge for the ball and that the covering defender ultimately got back to cover the goal line

Thankfully, you weren't observing me, otherwise you'd have finished my season because your view of this incident was binary and mine was not. It's not Dermot's opinion that interests me as such, it's the wrongness associated with the whole incident which gets me
a) The cheating, b) The Ref being duped c) The dismissal which I think was supportable, but I would have gone yellow d) The impact on the season outcome e) The necessity for the scourge of VAR f) The fact that VAR may not have fixed the wrong decision(s) g) The binary view held by Observers on the Forum, so strongly held, it could have finished a Referee's season

None of it is good; except my pointing out that it was not a binary DOGSO - Doubt which can't be doubted given the red card has now been rejected by an ex-EPL R, albeit one I've no time for
Click to expand...
But the standard is not a goal beyond any doubt which is what your post feels like you are saying. There can be doubt about whether a goal will be scored that's not the question. It's about an obvious opportunity to score a goal so I feel you're adding your own layer on to this.

If, 1 on 1 With a keeper, less than 18 yards from goal with a defender who may or may not be covering can't be considered an obvious opportunity to score a goal at a professional level (even taking out the considerations) then we might as well do away with the whole thing. And then we'll see where the cheating starts.
 
JamesL said:
But the standard is not a goal beyond any doubt which is what your post feels like you are saying. There can be doubt about whether a goal will be scored that's not the question. It's about an obvious opportunity to score a goal so I feel you're adding your own layer on to this.

If, 1 on 1 With a keeper, less than 18 yards from goal with a defender who may or may not be covering can't be considered an obvious opportunity to score a goal at a professional level (even taking out the considerations) then we might as well do away with the whole thing. And then we'll see where the cheating starts.
Click to expand...
Like I say James, I know the criteria for DOGSO. I'd support the R either way. Dermot did not however
The GK may have been able to challenge/save and therefore disrupt control of the ball and the defender arguably got round the back by the time a shot would've come in. So there's a doubt about two of the criteria. It's just not my style to reach for double jeopardy if I'm not sure and I really don't think I'd have been sure enough. My overriding point is that we shouldn't take a binary view of subjectivity
Lots of reasons for me to spout up on this incident. All a bad advert for the game and I find some of the posts above concerning. Not least the ways in which we're forced to Referee if we want to safeguard or boost our score
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top