I think the only reason he knocks it so far ahead is as a result of the foul challenge coming in.Think I'm with Alex here, there is a very big doubt as to whether the attacker is getting to the ball before the keeper, he has knocked it a long way ahead. I wouldn't argue with anyone going red, but I also think there is enough doubt to make it yellow.
I think the only reason he knocks it so far ahead is as a result of the foul challenge coming in.
If that foul doesn't happen he is in control and certain to remain so. The doubt only comes in by virtue of the foul being made and at the point its committed there's an obvious opportunity for a goal to be scored.
Although I don't disagree that his touch might not have been so bad had he not been aware of the incoming tackle, I don't think we can decide it's DOGSO based on "he might have taken a better touch". He's already taken the bad touch, playing the ball so far ahead of him that he's unlikely to regain possession, then he's fouled.I think the only reason he knocks it so far ahead is as a result of the foul challenge coming in.
If that foul doesn't happen he is in control and certain to remain so. The doubt only comes in by virtue of the foul being made and at the point its committed there's an obvious opportunity for a goal to be scored.
No, he clearly does not. As others have said, you probably need to replay it on a bigger screen. Even if he did though, getting the ball does not preclude committing a foul when your careless and/or reckless follow-through takes the player's legs out from under him.Wins the ball, does he not?
yes trying to play the ball in the box and taking the man out is a yellow and a pen
Bit patronising there Peter. As if I don't know that. Besides, on this occasion, I see this as a very fair challenge, if he did indeed win the ball, which he may well not have done.Even if he did though, getting the ball does not preclude committing a foul when your careless and/or reckless follow-through takes the player's legs out from under him.
I'm not saying he might have taken a better touch.Although I don't disagree that his touch might not have been so bad had he not been aware of the incoming tackle, I don't think we can decide it's DOGSO based on "he might have taken a better touch". He's already taken the bad touch, playing the ball so far ahead of him that he's unlikely to regain possession, then he's fouled.
This is a couple of frames before the touch which shows the foul challenge coming before the touchNot so sure, as it looks to me like he kicks the ball before the challenge, hence why there is so much doubt whether he or the defender plays the ball. We are all looking at this from replays though, real time that would be an incredibly difficult decision to make.
Assuming I had my glasses on and gave the FT, I'd also be dismissing for DOGSO. Without VAR, I don't want to be the only one there not expecting the red card to be producedThis is a couple of frames before the touch which shows the foul challenge coming before the touch
View attachment 4943
I know stills don't give a true story, but as a referee, taking this snapshot, it's one of the clearest DoGSOs you're likely to see.
'Foul tackle coming' is not a foul. It should not be a determination in DOGSO. Nor should be what the attacker may have done if he didn't think he wasn't being fouled. Sending a player off on the assumption of the attacker would have taken a better touch if he didn't think he was being fouled is a slippery slide I don't want to get on. Think about a scenario when foul is coming inside the pen area but contact outside. Would you give a pen?This is a couple of frames before the touch which shows the foul challenge coming before the touch
View attachment 4943
I know stills don't give a true story, but as a referee, taking this snapshot, it's one of the clearest DoGSOs you're likely to see.
So when does a foul become a foul? If the challenge is careless, then its careless. It doesn't start out okay and then become careless. At the point this challenge starts the player is already committing the foul because he has initiated what results in a careless challenge (in my opinion of course )'Foul tackle coming' is not a foul. It should not be a determination in DOGSO. Nor should be what the attacker may have done if he didn't think he wasn't being fouled. Sending a player off on the assumption of the attacker would have taken a better touch if he didn't think he was being fouled is a slippery slide I don't want to get on. Think about a scenario when foul is coming inside the pen area but contact outside. Would you give a pen?
There is no foul untill there is a foul. And the attacker had already taken a heavy touch before there was a foul.
From this clip enough doubts for gaining control for me. Different angles can give different stories though. But this is the only one we can judge it with.
It is common convention, it becomes a foul when contact is made. You are over thinking this. Reading too much into the wording of the laws. Think about the example of the in/out penalty area I gave.So when does a foul become a foul? If the challenge is careless, then its careless. It doesn't start out okay and then become careless. At the point this challenge starts the player is already committing the foul because he has initiated what results in a careless challenge (in my opinion of course )
Or instead of using that (IMO) very flimsy argument, we can use the point at which the defender trips the attacker (which is after the attacker has played the ball) as the point where the foul occurs.So when does a foul become a foul? If the challenge is careless, then its careless. It doesn't start out okay and then become careless. At the point this challenge starts the player is already committing the foul because he has initiated what results in a careless challenge (in my opinion of course )
That is not what DOGSO offence is. For DOGSO offence the foul has to deny the attacker a goal scoring opportunity (different to saying "if the foul didn't occur, the attacker would have had a goalscoring opportunity"). In either case, that is based on the assumption that anticipation of the foul made the attacker take a heavy touch. That is not an assumption I am willing to send a player off for.It doesn't matter where the foul occurred. What @JamesL is correctly saying is that if the foul didn't occur, the attacker would have had a goalscoring opportunity. Therefore, the foul denied said goalscoring opportunity.