A&H

Celtic v Ross County

The player is moving in the general direction of the goal - he's hardly running in the complete opposite direction ...

Surely we're not saying a player has to be running directly between the sticks - and that an angle of run that would take a player 2-3 yards to the side of the goal would mean it's not a DOGSO ..?

(I'm still happy with either a yellow or red but leaning to a red!)
 
The Referee Store
ASM said:
For me the caution is the correct decision for precisely the reason @lscott66 mentions. I have no doubt that the opportunity to score is there and that you would expect a player of this skill level to score but the criteria on moving towards goal isn't clearly met given the distance from goal, outside the penalty area and wide, therefore the opportunity isn't Obvious.
Click to expand...

So, you "have no doubt that the opportunity to score is there" but the "opportunity isn't obvious". Which is it?
 
I see where you're coming from, but the issue we have here is that your definition of obvious is different to the law's definition of obvious. Unfortunately we need to operate within the parameters of law.
 
Look at this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOHeDnO8WIo - player is not moving towards goal when fouled (and probably would intercept the Goal Line at the same place as the Ross County player in the OP) ... but - I think we'd all agree it's a DOGO

It's shades of grey (orange!) which makes football opinions great ..!

EDIT - oops - wrong video - try this one :
 
Last edited:
The big difference between the two clips here is the distance to goal, one challenge happens 2-3 yards inside the penalty area, in line with side of the goal area, fairly central, the other happens 2-3 yards outside the penalty area, almost in line with the side of the penalty area, so fairly wide on the field of play. The touch from the player in the second clip is much more controlled and the ball is there for him, and had the challenge not come in he would've been in control of the ball. The first clip, in my opinion the touch is quite "heavy" and designed to simply avoid the goalkeeper, and he would've had to chase that ball before being deemed fully in control. I don't agree that they would intercept the goal line at similar places, from what I can see, the first post will intercept the goal line outside of the penalty area, due to the direction, and strength of the final touch of that player before he was fouled. The second clip looks like it will intercept the goal line, and indeed does intercept the goal line pretty much on the goal area line, so much closer to the goal, and with the player being in more control of the ball, in my opinion.

However, I do agree that there are different shades of orange to reflect different peoples opinions!
 
lscott66 said:
In my opinion, this can't be classed as a DOGSO, despite all comments about the players ability to score from that angle. Under law 12, S5 is "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick". On this example, the final touch of the player before the foul, makes it certainly not a DOGSO, purely because the direction of the ball, is going closer to the corner flag than it is to the goal. It is irrelevant what the player can do from certain angles, we have to make a decision based on the law definition of an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not what we think the player may be able to do.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts,if not moving towards goal, only other question is if challenge was reckless
 
OIREF! said:
So, you "have no doubt that the opportunity to score is there" but the "opportunity isn't obvious". Which is it?
Click to expand...
I'll put it another way. For me the challenge from the GK
  • Denies a Goal Scoring Opportunity (DGSO)
Not
  • Denies an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO)
The latter is the only one which attracts a red card ;)
 
ASM said:
I'll put it another way. For me the challenge from the GK
  • Denies a Goal Scoring Opportunity (DGSO)
Not
  • Denies an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO)
The latter is the only one which attracts a red card
Click to expand...

To put it simply, it's either an obvious goal scoring opportunity of nothing. I don't fancy trying to explain the difference between an opportunity and an obvious opportunity.
 
OIREF! said:
To put it simply, it's either an obvious goal scoring opportunity of nothing. I don't fancy trying to explain the difference between an opportunity and an obvious opportunity.
Click to expand...

Just tell the player you didn't think they were good enough to score from there ;)
 
The law doesn't say directly towards goal, the player is probably getting closer to the goal which is good enough for me in this instance. The way some people interpret the law the goalkeeper may as well wait until the player tries to take it round him and then just take him as the player is apparently no longer moving towards goal.
 
The referee is never going to give that in the game. By the time he has seen the challenge and looked to assess the general situation, in 1 or 2 seconds that it takes him to do that the game will have moved on too much for a red card to be given.
So the referee was correct to give a yellow, regardless of what the TV camera reveals in slow motion when watched 5 or 6 times.
For the record, even from the replays, this is not 'obvious'.
 
I agree with the ref on both calls.
I think the level of debate we've had proves the GSO was not "obvious".
But then I've never issued an RC for DOGSO in the 200+ matches I've refereed so....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top