A&H

SE Dons - DOGSO in a friendly?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mada

Active Member
Interested to hear the thoughts of other members as to whether this is DOGSO? Note that this is a friendly.


In my opinion it's a clear DOGSO as there is no attempt to play the ball.

However, I'd also be interested to hear how this situation should be handled/managed specifically in a friendly. I notice the referee didn't send the player off but I'd expect in a competitive game the player would have been sent off. It's hard to tell from the video but the opposition players seem to be content with the penalty and no shouts for a red.
 
The Referee Store
Interested to hear the thoughts of other members as to whether this is DOGSO? Note that this is a friendly.


In my opinion it's a clear DOGSO as there is no attempt to play the ball.

However, I'd also be interested to hear how this situation should be handled/managed specifically in a friendly. I notice the referee didn't send the player off but I'd expect in a competitive game the player would have been sent off. It's hard to tell from the video but the opposition players seem to be content with the penalty and no shouts for a red.
I'd be dismissing the commentator before the defender
I'm not too interested in DOGSO here. The attacker has limited control of the ball, the defender is challenging for the ball and the Goalkeeper is very close
 
Nah, I'm with BigCat on this. It's a fairly agricultural challenge, but he's still clearly trying to get the ball - so the worst we can do is DOGSO yellow. And that's if you think the attacker has a good opportunity to beat the keeper - not sure the ball is ever in a position where even a shot on target is odds on. I think penalty and yellow card keeps everyone happy here.

Note that the fact it's a "friendly" doesn't come into the above discussion....
 
IMHO good decision in this game but in a real game it's holding that is the offence and DOGSO-R is an easy call.

I don't buy this 'real game' stuff - do you have a list of which laws you ignore in a friendly?

As for the foul itself, if you believe its DOGSO then its a pull and a red - its given for what he goes down for, not the swings of the leg to try and win the ball. I don't, however think its DOGSO. Doesn't have control and the likelihood of gaining it before the GK gets there is small.
 
If he's not fouled he is 100% having a shot on goal before the goalkeeper gets the ball.
 
If he's not fouled he is 100% having a shot on goal before the goalkeeper gets the ball.

I'm really not sure - certainly from that camera angle - that he would've been able to control that. Certainly not before the GK was on top of him, anyway and to that end the first O of DOGSO isn't satisfied for me. But I appreciate that an onfield team would hope to be in a better position than a single, stationary camera on the touchline.
 
I don't buy this 'real game' stuff - do you have a list of which laws you ignore in a friendly?

As for the foul itself, if you believe its DOGSO then its a pull and a red - its given for what he goes down for, not the swings of the leg to try and win the ball. I don't, however think its DOGSO. Doesn't have control and the likelihood of gaining it before the GK gets there is small.
Context - the teams are mates - the attacking team are a lot better - it's a friendly for that team's benefit - and no one at this game wants the other team down to 10 men. That's why there are no mental appeals.

We talk a lot on here about not changing the laws for friendlies - and I totally agree, especially when it comes to reckless, SFP, VC.
I think we also have to use common sense when it comes to technical offences - I do not give every foul throw in a grassroots U12 game, for instance.

So, here, yes you can DOGSO-R the player.... but, given the context, if you can massage a DOGSO-Y downgrade based on attempts to tackle then that's smart refereeing.
 
In my opinion it's a clear DOGSO as there is no attempt to play the ball.
Attempting to play the ball is not determinative of whether it's DOGSO, only the colour of the card. Did you mean that it's DOGSO-R as there's no attempt to play the ball? Anyway, if that's what you mean, I disagree; for me the defender makes at least one, if not more attempts to play the ball and it's only due to these continued attempts to play the ball that he ends up fouling the opponent.

For me it is DOGSO, the player is essentially one on one with the keeper only 6 yards out and I think had a high likelihood of controlling the ball if he wasn't being fouled but it should only be a yellow, because for me the defender is definitely trying to play the ball.

I don't understand the bit about being close to the keeper - he's close to the keeper because he's only a couple of yards from goal. The distance consideration DOGSO talks about is distance from goal, not distance from the keeper. For me if a player is one on one with keeper 6 yards out (or about to be) then we don't say it's not an obvious goal scoring opportunity just because the keeper is close - it's inevitable that he's close, given the proximity of the player to the goal.

The element of control is perhaps a little more dubious but I think if he's not being fouled, the player easily controls that ball.
 
For me it is DOGSO,
Agreed.

Anyway, if that's what you mean, I disagree; for me the defender makes at least one, if not more attempts to play the ball and it's only due to these continued attempts to play the ball that he ends up fouling the opponent.
Are you saying (once you decided this is DOGSO ) it is DOGSO-Y? I strongly disagree. He did attempt to play the ball but the foul is not for that. The foul is for holding which is a very obvious one for me. Holding is not an attempt to play the ball. So it would have to be a red card.
To be clear, holding an opponent while attempting to play the ball with the foot should result in a DOGSO red not yellow (provide other DOGSO conditions are met).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top