A&H

MLS Chad Marshall RC interesting VAR angles

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
From 1:00

Sound off if you can't handle the Instant Replay guys!

This is a really interesting scenario IMHO.
There are lots of replays here and lots of angles.

From a couple of angles it looks like no play on the ball and SFP.
From other angles it looks like a clean tackle with negligible contact.

It is incredible how different the replays look... is this a RC?
 
The Referee Store
That's an easy RC decision on replay and if you have the right angle on the field. It's proof how important the angle is for key decisions for those of us who don't have the luxury of VAR. You'd get that right with good angle from 30 yards but could get it wrong with poor angle from 3 yards.
 
Really, I don't get easy here? ;)
The still that shows studs against area below the knee could be misleading IMHO... in real time the leg movement is so fast, is it conclusive that there is any contact?
 
I'm certain there is contact. The amount of force may not be a lot but here is where the easy comes in. Any amount of force made by the studs of an outstretched foot to the side of the knee of an opponent is excessive for me.
 
I'll take the DOGSO here.

There are studs on the calf, but I could accept an argument that there wasn't a lot of force behind it, and not enough of a risk to an opponent. I won't argue against a red, but I'd accept a yellow. But the foul denied control to an opponent - had he been able to take control he'd be 1-on-1 with the keeper in a goalscoring position. Angling away from goal, yes, but not massively and still at a good shooting angle. IMO the DOGSO is a more solid red than SFP.

It's definitely a foul because while the defender did block the ball - that was with his thigh and the foot went past the ball, missed it entirely and clipped the player.
 
The defender has won the ball, the ball is heading away from the goal, the attacker is not in control, VAR thinks that the angle that shows the foot in front of the knee does not confirm there was any contact, the defender's follow through is retracted so quickly it is not clear if there is excessive, reckless, careless or no contact... in the absence of a conclusive angle from the side showing contact, VAR says no foul...

My point is: I would buy that from the VAR in this case.

That's what I find interesting about this clip. From the most damning angle I don't think its conclusive. From the other angles it looks clean. IMHO

At the same time I could buy RC SFP, YC reckless, DOGSO-R or no foul...

I don't buy definite or easy though here! But YMMV I guess ;)

(Off ill today so too much time on my hands!)
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I'll take the DOGSO here.

There are studs on the calf, but I could accept an argument that there wasn't a lot of force behind it, and not enough of a risk to an opponent. I won't argue against a red, but I'd accept a yellow. But the foul denied control to an opponent - had he been able to take control he'd be 1-on-1 with the keeper in a goalscoring position. Angling away from goal, yes, but not massively and still at a good shooting angle. IMO the DOGSO is a more solid red than SFP.

It's definitely a foul because while the defender did block the ball - that was with his thigh and the foot went past the ball, missed it entirely and clipped the player.
Click to expand...

Surely you can't go DOGSO here? We have no idea whether that touch would be over hit, under hit, take him wide or whether the keeper will claim it depending on direction. The striker is at no point in control of that ball so it can't be classed as an obvious goal scoring opportunity surely?
 
Yes, the lack of control, and the ball being several yards the wrong side makes Dogso criteria a tough sell, to say the least;)
 
QuaverRef said:
Surely you can't go DOGSO here? We have no idea whether that touch would be over hit, under hit, take him wide or whether the keeper will claim it depending on direction. The striker is at no point in control of that ball so it can't be classed as an obvious goal scoring opportunity surely?
Click to expand...
that's why it's called OPPORTUNITY
There's nothing particularly difficult about the control of this ball. It's bouncing, knee height, not really going anywhere, right in front of him.

I mean, come on. You have to assume he's almost certain to get control here. We're not talking about an aerial ball coming at a funny angle.

It's such an easy ball I'd expect an U/10 player to take control there. I think you're stretching here.

There's NO requirement for the player to have ALREADY controlled the ball. None whatsover. DOGSO can most definitely occur even when the first touch hasn't been taken (except it has been taken here).

As for whether that touch was too hard - well, the only reason we don't know that is because of the foul, isn't it?


santa sangria said:
Yes, the lack of control, and the ball being several yards the wrong side makes Dogso criteria a tough sell, to say the least;)
Click to expand...
You're falling for tick-box refereeing, IMO. You don't need to be directly headed for the specific blades of grass between the posts. 'direction' is a consideration - it doesn't mean angling away from goal means it's not DOGSO.

With the benefit of slo-mo replay we can guesstimate where he'd be likely to reclaim the ball, and even there he's in an excellent position to hit the goal. He's still going more 'towards' than 'away'.
 
santa sangria said:
The defender has won the ball, the ball is heading away from the goal, the attacker is not in control, VAR thinks that the angle that shows the foot in front of the knee does not confirm there was any contact, the defender's follow through is retracted so quickly it is not clear if there is excessive, reckless, careless or no contact... in the absence of a conclusive angle from the side showing contact, VAR says no foul...

My point is: I would buy that from the VAR in this case.

That's what I find interesting about this clip. From the most damning angle I don't think its conclusive. From the other angles it looks clean. IMHO

At the same time I could buy RC SFP, YC reckless, DOGSO-R or no foul...

I don't buy definite or easy though here! But YMMV I guess ;)

(Off ill today so too much time on my hands!)
Click to expand...
Do you mean if the ref gave the foul initially, would the VAR overturn it? Odd question given that the VAR gave it....but let's pretend the VAR lacks the conclusive angles showing contact.

The VAR can only overturn if the referee is clearly wrong. That means, it needs to clearly show no contact. Not clearly showing contact isn't the same as clearly showing no contact. The other angles could, at a stretch, be considered inconclusive - and the VAR wouldn't overturn it.
 
Complete and utter accident. No disregard for opponents safety, no brutality, no force (let alone excessive)
In the process of playing football, contact happens and safety cannot be guaranteed. Get on with it
In fact, in the absence of slow motion (again), I'm not even giving a foul because it was a routine tackle with some accidental contact
 
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard said:
that's why it's called OPPORTUNITY
There's nothing particularly difficult about the control of this ball. It's bouncing, knee height, not really going anywhere, right in front of him.

I mean, come on. You have to assume he's almost certain to get control here. We're not talking about an aerial ball coming at a funny angle.

It's such an easy ball I'd expect an U/10 player to take control there. I think you're stretching here.

There's NO requirement for the player to have ALREADY controlled the ball. None whatsover. DOGSO can most definitely occur even when the first touch hasn't been taken (except it has been taken here).

As for whether that touch was too hard - well, the only reason we don't know that is because of the foul, isn't it?



You're falling for tick-box refereeing, IMO. You don't need to be directly headed for the specific blades of grass between the posts. 'direction' is a consideration - it doesn't mean angling away from goal means it's not DOGSO.

With the benefit of slo-mo replay we can guesstimate where he'd be likely to reclaim the ball, and even there he's in an excellent position to hit the goal. He's still going more 'towards' than 'away'.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how hard it is to control, any player can make a mistake at any moment regardless of ability. If you're having to make an assumption that the player will do something correctly, that means it hasn't happened and isn't obvious. The fact that you've said that he's 'almost certain' means that there is a level of doubt.
 
Deffo a foul, red I can see it but I can also see a yellow as well. In real time and at the angle the ref was in you had to be there. VAR decision we could be here all night but my gut feeling studs up and contact so red I think is right.
 
cwyeary said:
Not very often we have a thread where we have a bit of everything. Seems at least one person each says no foul, foul, yellow, and red.
Click to expand...
I've played infinitely more than i've refereed. Maybe that's the difference
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
that's why it's called OPPORTUNITY
There's nothing particularly difficult about the control of this ball. It's bouncing, knee height, not really going anywhere, right in front of him.

I mean, come on. You have to assume he's almost certain to get control here. We're not talking about an aerial ball coming at a funny angle.

It's such an easy ball I'd expect an U/10 player to take control there. I think you're stretching here.

There's NO requirement for the player to have ALREADY controlled the ball. None whatsover. DOGSO can most definitely occur even when the first touch hasn't been taken (except it has been taken here).

As for whether that touch was too hard - well, the only reason we don't know that is because of the foul, isn't it?



You're falling for tick-box refereeing, IMO. You don't need to be directly headed for the specific blades of grass between the posts. 'direction' is a consideration - it doesn't mean angling away from goal means it's not DOGSO.

With the benefit of slo-mo replay we can guesstimate where he'd be likely to reclaim the ball, and even there he's in an excellent position to hit the goal. He's still going more 'towards' than 'away'.
Click to expand...
Are you watching the same clip? The defender plays the ball, then the man. By the time of the "contact" the ball is gone. Surely you can't base a DOGSO decision on what might have happened if someone hadn't played the ball?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top