Direction of travel.
Control of ball.
Covering defenders once he has control / turned towards goal.
The fact that the offence occurred after he lost control of the ball to a legitimate challenge.
MLS Chad Marshall RC interesting VAR angles
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
Control of ball.
Covering defenders once he has control / turned towards goal.
The fact that the offence occurred after he lost control of the ball to a legitimate challenge.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Direction - Not heading directly to the blades of grass between the goal posts doesn't immediately disqualify. He's still heading more towards the goal than away from it. Attackers are allowed to angle away a little to get around a defender.
Control - he's not required to have control, likely to acquire control is enough.
Covering defenders - nope, they're all behind him and he's within shooting distance already. Only takes a touch to turn, they won't reach him in that time (Heck, at this level he should be able to take the shot on his 2nd touch, but that would be pushing it for DOGSO!)
Offence occurred after he lost control of the ball - plenty of fouls are 'ball first'. If the defender fouls while dispossessing the ball, then that's the DOGSO foul (honestly, I find it really befuddling that some of you are saying 'if the defender knocks the ball away as part of the foul it's not DOGSO'. That's not how DOGSO works).
legitimate challenge - no, the defender misjudged it. He not only misjudged it, but came in high with studs on the player's leg. On no planet is that a fair challenge.
A few major issues with your considerations here... let's look at the timeline to start:
a) the attacking player (in dark) is moving toward the left-hand side of the penalty area (it can be argued that this could be in the direction of the goal, but can also be argued that it's moving toward the corner) kicks the ball forward, it hits the defending player (in green) and bounces behind him, moving away from goal, and in the opposite direction to the one the attacking player is going
b) once the ball is moving in the other direction, the green player's foot makes contact with the dark player (which is the potential offence situation, I'm not going to get into whether or not this is an offence at this time, because I'm looking at the DOGSO bit)
c) when this potential offence occurs, the ball is 3-4m BEHIND the attacking player, and still moving away from goal, while the attacking player is moving to enter the penalty area.
So, typically for DOGSO, we remove the offence. So, let's take step 'b' out of the equation here. What's left?
a) the attacking player (in dark) is moving toward the left-hand side of the penalty area (it can be argued that this could be in the direction of the goal, but can also be argued that it's moving toward the corner) kicks the ball forward, it hits the defending player (in green) and bounces behind him, moving away from goal, and in the opposite direction to the one the attacking player is going
That, right there, makes this NOT an obvious goal scoring opportunity. If there's doubt, go to the next lower sanction and look at whether that's feasible.
There is 0 expectation of DOGSO on this play. There's sufficient doubt, whether you look at the direction of the attacker OR the direction of the ball after it hits the defender, before any (potentially) illegal contact is made.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
The video does show a still with the foot in front of the leg but doesn't show "stamp" or even contact conclusively IMHO
I don't get how anyone could come with a black and white argument here - though that last phrase was black and white - which is what makes this clip and VAR decision so amazing for me...
Amazingly good or bad Santa???
