Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO)

Come off it Kev, it was completely different. Are you going to do this for every foul that happens this season in the efl?

Player gets fouled in the opposition half and doesn't get a red therefore it's inconsistent. The example last night bares absolutely no resemblance to ours on Saturday.

 

I pointed out a “similar” situation working from memory …… Just checked the recording and it’s bang on the halfway line . Hope that helps , clear the official though he was too far away from goal.

 

Edit, checked it was on the halfway line .

 

It's not though, it's exactly the same. A clear opportunity is a clear opportunity regardless of the player involved, The law doesn't change and refs start awarding more reds because a PL player can pluck it out of the air and volley it into the top corner, that's just never been a consideration when applying the lDOGSO law.

 

You don't to be honest. It's a laughable comparison but then it seems very on trend with the referee critics at the moment to talk about 'inconsistency' by flagging up two completely different incidents.

 

I disagree. What is an ‘obvious’ ‘opportunity’ at one skill level is not at another. How obvious an opportunity is depends partly on the probability of it being converted to a goal. But we’ll probably have to agree to differ on this.

 

Please can the admin put all this ref tripe in a separate thread.

 

I suppose what we don't also consider is the multiples of ways some refs choose to referee and communicate through the game.

Some people like myself may want refs to be slightly more lenient, try and let the game flow and clamp down only when it's needed whereas some refs come in, apply the laws to the letter (which is their prerogative) and can sometimes spoil the game as spectacle even though it's been refereed within the laws of the game. So for me, how the referee interprets the application of the laws is the biggest factor in fans having a moan, whether that's justified or not.

 

I was working from memory and edited my “ location” comment afterwords after reviewing it again.

 

We don't have to disagree as it's not an opinion, it's clearly defined in the laws of the game. Nowhere in the definition of the law does it mention a players ability or skill level and it nowhere does it mention the "probability of it being converted to a goal". Those points are completely irrelevant when applying the DOGSO law.

 

In theory, yes. But those things are implicit in the definitions of the words ‘obvious’ and ‘opportunity’. Unless you are going to make much stricter guidelines about how far from goal etc then referees have to make highly subjective decisions about what is an ‘opportunity’ (as opposed to a vague theoretical possibility) and how ‘obvious’ it is. Both of those decisions are affected by each referee’s personal subjective judgement of probability in every such scenario. Which is why different refs will make different decisions in the same scenario. I think it’s naive to believe that skill level doesn’t influence those decisions in any way.

 

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

The following must be considered:

- distance between the offence and the goal
- general direction of the play
- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- location and number of defenders

Those are the guidelines for referees to consider. The actual conversion of the chance doesn't even enter the conversation and "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball" refers to proximity, speed and height of the ball, not the ability of the player.

 

As I said, I know all of that. So we’ll have to agree to differ.

 

It’s like having different laws when Messi is playing,different laws when a mid table Prem player is playing and a different law when Ben Muirhead was playing.

As you say it’s just not possible to differentiate.

 

Then I don't know why you're still pushing the ability of a player or the likelihood of converting the chance as a consideration. It's simply not, as defined in the laws of the game.

This isn't opinion, this is all fact based so there's no "differing", it's either correct or incorrect and clearly your suggestion was an incorrect interpretation.

 

I think this increases with a Salah type, would certainly expect it to be a higher likelihood than with a L2 player.

Anyway, all about interpretation of the guidelines.

 

I think this increases with a Salah type, would certainly expect it to be a higher likelihood than with a L2 player.

Anyway, all about interpretation of the guidelines.[/QUOTE]

I give up, I'm out!

 

This is guidelines as opposed to rules? Can I just say this is a very poorly written set of guidelines for anyone to consider during play

They don’t read like guidelines ie they say if player uncle Tom Gobbly an all interferes with an opponent and denies them DOGSO it is guilty of a sending off offence. Then it goes on to give limited guidance on things to consider.

It either is a sending off offence or it isn’t. You might as well bin them and leave it to the ref to decide. It just causes more confusion. Which effectively is what the refs are doing. “Obvious” is an ambiguous word my obvious could be entirely different to the next person. “Likelihood” another ambiguous word that differs.

It lays out who and when in the first part of these guidelines but then more or less tell the ref to send them off. Then instead of asking refs to consider all kinds of variables they say he must consider these in the second part.

Don’t let whoever wrote this jumbled up mess near anything that requires due diligence and clarity.

 

totally agree. There is more likelihood of a professional footballer gaining control of it then me doing the same