Opinions needed

[Engin Ataman]

Two defenders in close proximity, ball travelling at speed and an awkward angle. I’m not yet convinced by DOGSO

they are behind him at the time of goalkeeper contact. yes close, but behind.

 

[Engin Ataman]

There are 4 Dogso criteria to be Considered. For me the most important one to get started is Control of the ball or likelihood to regain control. Your stills paint a false picture.
1) in the first instance it's a long punt forward and he never has control of the ball
2)even if the keeper doesn't get to it first he isn't certainly going to regain possession of the ball
3) when the keeper plays the ball it cannons off the attacker and is likely to go out for a goal kick.

Proximity of other defenders
There are two defenders who are also impeded by the GKs actions. He isn't obviously going to get past them.

Direction of play
Is a probably, dependent on how his first touch goes, if he were to have beaten the keeper.

Distance to goal is an almost definite.

For me only one of the criteria, arguably the least weighted factor in Dogso, has been met.

Yes there might be a GSO but at the point of the foul it is not yet obvious.

the ball went out for a goal kick but defender caught up to it (he just did not touch it since it was going out which is very clear in the video, no need for the stills ), if the defender can catch up to the ball, the attacker could definitely catch up too.

i agree with your #1 since goalkeeper actually got the chance to play the ball first but made a mess of it.
your #2 and #3 i disagree though. defenders slowed down (did not think goalkeeper would make it this messy i think), attacker had the most momentum and goalkeeper got him down. Ball was within reach.

 

[santa sangria]

@engin I think you have clearly justified why you could give a RC here. Good stuff.

 

[RobOda]

I seem to be the only one that voted to play on.

I can see all sides of the argument on this one. My initial thought process was this was as good a challenge as the keeper could do in the circumstances. I may (and probably should) go foul, caution, but I'm not fully sold on DOSGO or SFP.

 

[Mintyref]

Of course it’s “relevant.” Getting the ball doesn’t make him free and clear, but not getting the ball is a factor in deciding how bad it is.

Getting the ball is irrelevant in judging any foul, there is no excuse "I got the ball ref".

 

[Mintyref]

I seem to be the only one that voted to play on.

I can see all sides of the argument on this one. My initial thought process was this was as good a challenge as the keeper could do in the circumstances. I may (and probably should) go foul, caution, but I'm not fully sold on DOSGO or SFP.

Has @Sheffields Finest hacked your account?

 

[socal lurker]

Getting the ball is irrelevant in judging any foul, .

This is simply incorrect.

there is no excuse "I got the ball ref".

To be snarky: DUH!!! OK, got that out of by system. But no one has remotely suggested that "I got ball" means there was not a foul. No one. You are drawing a false connection. Agreeing that "I got ball" is not the end of the story is not the same thing as agreeing that whether a player was able to get to the ball is irrelevant. There is contact that we will permit by a player who is playing the ball and able to get to it that we would not permit if the player were not able to reach the ball. Similarly, when deciding whether a play was reckless, whether the player was able to play the ball can--in some cases--be a factor in deciding if the play was reckless or merely careless.

 

[Tealeaf]

Observations:
1. From the referee’s position absolutely no chance. Give a red there and he’s guessing. Straight line view onto the backs of three players.

2. Attacker puts further doubt into the referee’s mind by taking two steps then tumbling into the penalty area to try and convince him it’s a spot kick and not a free kick. The one saving grace of the godawful angle he has is to see that any incident is well outside.

3. I have sympathy for the referee. In that situation this is the least likely outcome. More likely either the keeper will clear or a foul will be made by one of the defenders chasing back. He’s played the percentages and I’ll be damned if we wouldn’t do the same thing.

4. I’ll take SFP there but never a DOGSO.

 

[rainertheref]

the ball went out for a goal kick but defender caught up to it (he just did not touch it since it was going out which is very clear in the video, no need for the stills ), if the defender can catch up to the ball, the attacker could definitely catch up too.

i agree with your #1 since goalkeeper actually got the chance to play the ball first but made a mess of it.
your #2 and #3 i disagree though. defenders slowed down (did not think goalkeeper would make it this messy i think), attacker had the most momentum and goalkeeper got him down. Ball was within reach.

How is what happened after the GK's intervention relevant? It's relevant what the ball is doing before the GK gets involved, but how quickly the ball travels after being deflected tells us nothing at all about possible DOGSO!

All four factors have to be present for DOGSO, and when there's a defender right with him and he's heading away from goal there's just no DOGSO.

 

[santa sangria]

How is what happened after the GK's intervention relevant? It's relevant what the ball is doing before the GK gets involved, but how quickly the ball travels after being deflected tells us nothing at all about possible DOGSO!

All four factors have to be present for DOGSO, and when there's a defender right with him and he's heading away from goal there's just no DOGSO.

Not according to the book. All factors have to be ”considered”.

It’s quite possible to contrive scenarios where one factor is not fulfilled but there is still DOGSO.

(Attacker on the goal line between the posts, no control or not in possession or ball descending from the sky etc etc etc)

 

[Peter Grove]

All four factors have to be present for DOGSO,

As @santa sangria says, the four factors have to be considered, they don't have to 'be present.' It doesn't really even make sense to talk about them being present, since by their nature at least 3 of them are always present. The distance from goal, number and location of defenders and direction of play are always factors that exist.

There are always defenders on the field, the offence always occurs at a some distance or other from the goal and the play always has a direction. It's just a question of how far from goal, how many defenders (and where they are) and what the overall direction of play is when the offence occurs.

You can't say for instance, "The distance from goal must be present," or "The location of defenders must be present," it's only a question of how you assess those factors and judge their relative influence in determining whether an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been denied - or not.

 

[Nij]

Defenders are all behind the attacker who is winning the race to get a ball close to the top edge of the box.
Keeper either plays the ball so badly that it goes past at the same pace or misses the ball entirely. Either way, impedes or stops the attacker going forward with a kick to the chest.
DOGSOF if I'm in position to see it and sell the decision and would be helped a lot by an AR flag and running to the corner, but DFK+YC for reckless foul outside the box if I'm/we're stuck 20 metres back.
Not sure how anybody can justify letting that play on, though