A&H

WHU vs NFO

The Referee Store
deusex said:
An attacker one on one with the keeper would have, say, a 70% chance of scoring.
I'll be generous and say there was a 5% chance of the West Ham shot going in.
Click to expand...
And what would you judge the percentage chance that the shot is parried back to the attacker?
At what percentage chance of scoring would you judge there to be an 'obvious opportunity'?
 
cwyeary said:
And since I already know what comments are coming, I'll make this post now.

The laws give absolutely no information on what stopping a promising attack is. It is one of those cautions that is entirely based on considerations from IFAB and other governing bodies. Among those considerations for SPA are number of defenders back, number of passing options, space for the attacker to go into, etc. Included in those considerations at every level of the professional game is a handball that stops a shot on goal is SPA.

Why is a straight leg studs exposed tackle into the shin SFP? What makes that specific tackle fall into "endangering the safety of an opponent"? Because the considerations put out by IFAB/FIFA/FA say it does. The laws say absolutely nothing about studs into the shin. It's the same reason a shot on goal handball is SPA. Because IFAB/FIFA says it is when they train refs.
Click to expand...
I accept your SPA-HB position, but simple fact is it contradicts teachings over here that I've been on the end of
Should I be surprised by this inconsistency? Absolutely no surprise whatsoever. Anyway, I won't be losing sleep over it, although I despise the way Laws are interpreted on a disorganised basis and the way communication is disseminated from top to bottom. A big contributing factor when it comes to how badly the game is officiated in general
 
CaptainsPlease said:
And what would you judge the percentage chance that the shot is parried back to the attacker?
At what percentage chance of scoring would you judge there to be an 'obvious opportunity'?
Click to expand...
In the senior game, certainly in England, the phrase "what the game expects" is mentioned a lot. Outside of referees I don't think anyone expected a red card there, not even the West Ham players were complaining at the decision. Sending someone for for denying a goal or a goal scoring opportunity won't sit well with people when it was very obvious that the keeper was saving it. Might he have parried it yes, but its no different to when an attacker gets taken out when through on goal but has a very wide angle. He might score, but that doesn't make it enough for it to be classified as an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
 
I would also say this game was exactly how VAR should be used.

Correctly disallowed a goal for a clear and obvious push that was missed.

Correctly disallowed a goal for offside, and not by millimetres either.

Correctly spotted handling for a penalty that the on-pitch officials understandably missed.

(Presumably) advised the referee that the keeper was going to save so no DOGSO-H needed.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
And what would you judge the percentage chance that the shot is parried back to the attacker?
At what percentage chance of scoring would you judge there to be an 'obvious opportunity'?
Click to expand...

By that logic every foul is a red card.
After all who knows what was about to happen?
 
CaptainsPlease said:
By your logic you can have as many players acting like GKs as you like as long as the actual GK is behind them and in a position to block the shot!
Click to expand...


"In a position to block the shot"

Your language is very interesting. You're now being deliberately misleading in an attempt to prove your point.

The ball was 90+% going to hit the GK and not go in the net.
 
deusex said:
"In a position to block the shot"

Your language is very interesting. You're now being deliberately misleading in an attempt to prove your point.

The ball was 90+% going to hit the GK and not go in the net.
Click to expand...
'The ball was going to hit the GK'
'The GK was in position to block the shot'

These are equivalent statements.
 
Haven't seen the incident but listened on 5 live... commentator was red, co-comms was probably red but could understand yellow and accept.

Ultimately sounds like one of those where either card is accepted but without the time consumption... on a grassroots field, entirely different ballgame.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
'The ball was going to hit the GK'
'The GK was in position to block the shot'

These are equivalent statements.
Click to expand...
Either way, there is absolutely no way the ball was going in the goal so I don't see how it could have been DOGSO-H. At the absolutely most 5 or 10% chance he might have done a De Gea and let it squirm past him, but nowehere near the threshold for obvious.
 
RustyRef said:
Either way, there is absolutely no way the ball was going in the goal so I don't see how it could have been DOGSO-H. At the absolutely most 5 or 10% chance he might have done a De Gea and let it squirm past him, but nowehere near the threshold for obvious.
Click to expand...
Could have done a De Gea, or could have parried it to a West Ham player lurking a few yards away, or could have parried it into the infringing defender's back and rebound into the goal. Definitely doesn't feel right that a shot on target isn't considered an obvious goalscoring opportunity by default and a defender can choose to deliberately behave like a second GK if they put themselves in that position and not be sent off.
 
Perhaps I’m missing something but for me, Antonio collides with the defender, you can see him move his feet to try and get out of the way and his hands are raised to soften the blow when he realises he can’t get out of the way. Defender is off balance and way weaker so goes flying. I can see the argument for a foul but for me that’s just two players coming together?
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Could have done a De Gea, or could have parried it to a West Ham player lurking a few yards away, or could have parried it into the infringing defender's back and rebound into the goal. Definitely doesn't feel right that a shot on target isn't considered an obvious goalscoring opportunity by default and a defender can choose to deliberately behave like a second GK if they put themselves in that position and not be sent off.
Click to expand...
Yes, and a player clean through on goal could do a Ronnie Rosenthal and miss an open goal. You have to look at probabilities, and by far the most likely outcome here was the keeper would save it. As a referee you have to ask did the handling prevent a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity. For the referee real time that would be difficult to decide, but for a VAR with access to multiple camera angles it is very, very obvious that it didn't.
 
Had it been at one of my games I think I would have gone Red without hesitation. You’d have to be pretty confident that the keeper was saving that and in the time it happened and having to potentially look through the defenders body, I don’t think I could have said with any certainty the keeper was 100% making the save.

That being said, with the benefit of camera angles, I wouldn’t have gone red
 
Redster said:
For those advocating DOGSO-H, which of the mandatory considerations were met?
Click to expand...

• distance between the offence and the goal

Close enough to be an obvious opportunity

• general direction of the play

Heading directly towards goal

• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

Not relevant as the shot has been taken

• location and number of defenders

1 to beat. The dive to make a save is misleading. Could save and corner, could let it under him, could save and rebound for a tap in, could save and hold the ball.
 
Tealeaf said:
1 to beat. The dive to make a save is misleading. Could save and corner, could let it under him, could save and rebound for a tap in, could save and hold the ball.
Click to expand...
Could make a relatively routine save.

I'm in roughly the same camp as @QuaverRef - live I'd like to think I'd go red and I certainly wouldn't blame any referee with erring on the side of "this feels red". But with the benefit of replays, I think it would have taken a Sunday-league level howler from the GK to let it in from there, so yellow feels most correct to me.
 
QuaverRef said:
Had it been at one of my games I think I would have gone Red without hesitation. You’d have to be pretty confident that the keeper was saving that and in the time it happened and having to potentially look through the defenders body, I don’t think I could have said with any certainty the keeper was 100% making the save.

That being said, with the benefit of camera angles, I wouldn’t have gone red
Click to expand...

Agree absolutely. In real time no way am I certain of a save and I'd be going red 99/100
 
My view is the lack of control - having already taken the shot - is what withdraws this from being an 'opportunity'. The attacker can do nothing to improve the chances of the ball going in.

It's either an obvious goal or it's not. Thinking on DOGSO lines is erroneous, in my humble view
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top