Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO)

As I've said in earlier posts, my view is that the red card was the wrong call as I feel there was sufficient doubt in there to add question marks as to whether it was a CLEAR goalscoring opportunity.
That said, I don't think the decision can be described as a shocker. Different day, different ref and it's a yellow and we move on.
For that reason I don't agree with posters who are saying it was a stonewall red. All about opinions.
Think what we are pretty much all agreed on though is that the ref was woeful overall.

 

I know we've done this to death now, but in my opinion, when making such a game-changing decision there should be absolutely no doubt. Any doubt whatsoever and it's a yellow. Again, in my opinion there was an inkling of doubt. An outside chance Huntingdon gets across is sufficient doubt for me. And yes if the situation was reversed I'd probably be shouting for a red, but actually expecting it to be a yellow.

 

That’s a “moaning Twit” in action Gaz? “other decision(s) beyond that seemed very bizarre” . That’s a moan right there

 

Oddly and others have said this , we would “Hope it’s a red” knowing full well the outcome would generally, more often than not, be a yellow. I don’t know if you are suggesting the same perhaps?
I would be more than curious to see the outcome if the same scenario faced an opponent in any of our ensuing games ?…It’s the interpretation that kills especially as you indicate the referees work from a “ handbook” as opposed to the mere 4 basic principles of the decision making process we saw on here last night . I just googled referees handbook and a miriad of options turn up! Premier league, FA, FIFA … As we all often repeat , a basic game complicated by those who think they know better and that includes supporters .

 

Your obviously not a neutral observer .

 

His 5th game in got slaughtered for another poor display in his last outing so not looking to good is it ???

Not seen the decision from midweek but it seems that is was down the same route as ours yesterday ????

Ex ref Keith Hackett said the decision was 100% INCORRECT in the laws of the game ............

Just looked his sending off up midweek please you think yesterday was bad just please view that horror show

 

Were talking here about Courtney Baker-Richardson a guy who when one on one in the first 5 minutes but couldn't beat Walker from 5 yards out, so Courtney Baker-Richardson being 35 yards out from goal and as @QCFC BANTAM says not in control of the ball to class it as a goal scoring opportunity is harsh, but we were warned about Mr Humphries lack of understanding of the laws of the game, you do have to question his overall view of games he's refereed here is a comment from our own Simon Parker :

Not suggesting Humphries has got it in for visiting teams but of the 15 cards he has shown in his last three games, 14 of them have been brandished at away players – including a red each time.

In fact, only five of the 31 cards he has produced in his seven EFL matches to date have been for the home side. Without forensically checking each call, the odds appear heavily weighted against the travelling opposition.

And this comment from former FIFA referee Keith Hackett regarding the Crewe sending off Hackett said Courtney Baker-Richardson call was “100 per cent incorrect in law.”
“The referee red-carded the player for DOGSO (denial of a goal-scoring opportunity),” “He is 100 per cent incorrect in law.

“The law states the following criteria must be considered: The distance between the offence and the goal; general direction of play; likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball; location and number of defenders.

“The ball is in the air and the likelihood of gaining control of the ball is in my opinion zero.”

The Crewe incident was about a penalty in the box and part of the criteria is the distance between the offence and the goal were talking 3/4 yards out were yesterdays incident happened not 35 yards from goal.

Watching the Liverpool/Wolves game Simon Hooper gives Liverpool another penalty after he believes Diogo Jota is taken out by Emmanuel Agbadou inside the box, on the TV replay you can quite clearly see Diogo Jota has conned Hooper, the penalty is over ruled by VAR but does Diogo Jota get a yellow for what is cheating, Liverpool at Anfield trying to gain an unfair advantage not on your life does he show a yellow.

Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity
DOGSO stands for Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity. It is a rule in football that recognizes when an offense prevents a nearly guaranteed goal. If a defender fouls an attacker who is clear on goal with only the goalkeeper to beat, it's typically DOGSO. The rules and regulations surrounding DOGSO are strict to ensure fair play and prevent intentional fouls. If a player denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick, it is considered DOGSO.

 

If you're quoting Keith Hackett who was wrong in 1991 by that criteria, what makes you think he knows any better now?

 

Didn't get to watch or listen to this.

I'm just now going to check out the highlights so I'll clarify whether it's a red card or not in my next post

 

Thought 1: Damn, we got lucky early, Baker Richardson could have had 2! Certainly should have done better with his 1-on-1.

Thought 2: Yeah, it's a red. Huntington isn't realistic cover. I don't think he's gonna score, but he's definitely getting the chance.

 

You seen the incident ??,

 

1991 you'll have to remind me, this quote was with regards modern day football rules so why would he be wrong.

I also quoted the DOGSO rule which weren't used yesterday by the referee.

 

Only from the highlights, based on those I can see why it was given, albeit harsh.

 

Hackett was the first ref to actually give a red card under the DOGSO, infamously in a FA Cup Semi at Villa Park.
https://www.caughtoffside.com/2021/04/14/keith-hackett-column-red-card-for-denial-of-obvious-goalscoring-opportunity-is-30-today-but-i-wont-be-celebrating/

 

Those stats are shocking!

 

Now I understand your comment, BBC headlines after the game "It is unlikely that West Ham fans will ever forgive referee Keith Hackett for events at Villa Park on 14 April, 1991", also Hackett's comment with regards the incident "Hackett later revealed referees had been given fresh instruction from the FA a few days before the game to change the way they interpreted the laws about the professional foul" , my original comment was with regards the sending off of the Crewe player many penalties are given when defenders and forwards tangle in the box in the Crewe case it was a penalty and a yellow IMO.
Here are some things that should be taken into consideration with regards that rule :
As with any other refereeing decision, observing whether there has been a denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity can be relatively subjective, depending on what the referee feels they have seen. With that considered, however, there are at least five main points that officials should look at when deciding whether a DOGSO has been committed.

• Distance between the offence and the goal - A fairly obvious and expected part of the decision process, but how close was the foul and potential DOGSO to the goal that the fouled party were aiming to score in? Courtney Baker-Richardson was 35 yards from goal and certainly not in control of the ball as its plain to see in this still shot
• 
  
• General direction of play - Play, more often than not, should be towards the opponent’s goal if a team suffers a potential denial of a goal-scoring opportunity. Are they playing towards the goal they’re aiming to score in, or is the ball going backwards? well Courtney Baker-Richardson was defiantly going towards the City goal.
• 
  
• “Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball” - An important rule, as it ensures that teams can not simply launch the ball forward and see an opposing player be dismissed for any version of a foul. Is the ball, realistically, going to be gained and controlled by the attacking player or not? If not, then DOGSO does not necessarily need to be considered? I think most would agree Courtney Baker-Richardson would be favourite to get to the ball first, now whether he would have gained control is down to the referees interpretation.
• 
  
• Location - Keeping in line with the aforementioned rule regarding play’s general direction, a DOGSO is dictated by the position on the pitch where it takes place. If a player is deep within his own half when fouled, it can scarcely be considered a goal-scoring opportunity. not applicable as Courtney Baker-Richardson was in our half.
• Number of defenders - Alongside the location at which the potential DOGSO takes place, the number of defenders that surround the incident also have to be considered. If a player is fouled with five opposing defenders around him, then chances are he would not have broken through. If it was just one, however, that chance is far more likely. again Huntington is in that picture but whether he would have been able to get a challenge in is doubtful but would the fact that a player trying to close him down and an advancing goal keeper made any difference to him scoring, again that can only be how the referee interprets the situation so yes in Mr Humphries mind it was a goal scoring opportunity.
  

 

Credit to @Bronco for some great insights in this thread.

Humphries' league performances and booking almost exclusively players on the away team is absolutely appalling.

There may be an unlikely reason for it, but that needs investigating.