Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO)

It's the same with all rules and guidance in football. They have tried to appease the football community by trying to clarify and objectify the rules of the game. Handball is the biggest area of misunderstanding for me. I wince every time I hear someone say 'nobody knows the handball rule anymore'. It shouldn't be definable past simply asking the referee to make a judgement on whether a defender has used their arm to deliberately try and gain an advantage. The problem is that people are obsessed with this false idea of consistency that simply doesn't apply to a game where every single incident is different. I don't get this obsession with trying to throw a blanket over all vaguely similar incidents when in reality you can have very similar incidents that justifiably require different verdicts.

The problem is as soon as we go back to more ambiguous vague judgements then people start twisting about consistency again and using daft checklists for stuff like red cards and coming up with stupid statements like 'how come that was a red but that wasnt' just because two incidents share one common feature out of dozens that separate them.

 

I give up, I'm out![/QUOTE]
I felt like that. Although opinion to the decision may differ the actual criteria for the penalty to be given, as explained on here by a guy that referees, was there. The fact that it might be Lionel Messi or James Hanson the recipient of the opportunity makes not one shred of difference.

 

I felt like that. Although opinion to the decision may differ the actual criteria for the penalty to be given, as explained on here by a guy that referees, was there. The fact that it might be Lionel Messi or James Hanson the recipient of the opportunity makes not one shred of difference.[/QUOTE]
Of course it does. Because what is an ‘opportunity’ to one may not be for another. Likewise, what is ‘obvious’ to one ref may not be to another. Eg distance from goal - if a ball is played ten yards in front of Mo Salah or Erling Haaland 40 yards from goal he’s highly likely to get to it and shoot before defenders or goalkeeper can intercept it. So it’s a ‘obvious goalscoring opportunity’. James Hanson? Not so much. Same situation; different players. One’s an obvious opportunity to score, the other is a vague possibility. Nothing in the guidance alters that difference.

 

Hate to put a spanner in the works but they have different interpretation and application of the handball rules in the Champions league don’t they? Is that a UeFa thing?

 

Of course it does. Because what is an ‘opportunity’ to one may not be for another. Likewise, what is ‘obvious’ to one ref may not be to another. Eg distance from goal - if a ball is played ten yards in front of Mo Salah or Erling Haaland 40 yards from goal he’s highly likely to get to it and shoot before defenders or goalkeeper can intercept it. James Hanson? Not so much. Same situation; different players. One’s an obvious opportunity to score, the other is a vague possibility. Nothing in the guidance alters that difference.[/QUOTE]

Behave yourself. The ref doesn't determine the opportunity based on who the chance falls to. He would then be making the decision based on personal bias towards the player.

 

It would. But it wouldn’t alter the ref’s subjective judgement of whether any given incident is actually a DOGSO, which, as we’ve seen with the Shepherd incident, is also a subject of much dispute.

 

Behave yourself. The ref doesn't determine the opportunity based on who the chance falls to. He would then be making the decision based on personal bias towards the player.[/QUOTE]
You don’t think refs ever make decisions which involve their subjective views about different players? They’re humans. They must do.

 

You’d need different rules for hundreds of different players on a match by match basis.
Havertz has more goals than Vardy this year but I know who I’d want in a one on one with a keeper and he doesn’t play in North London.
Harland is having a shit season in comparison with last year.
Do you change the interpretation because he’s struggling a bit this year?
Chris Wood is having a stand out season.
Do we make him more liable to score on a match by match basis because he’s hit some form this season?
I’d fancy Jamie Walker and Billy Sharp more often than not in a one on one but we have to take in to account that they are currently league 2 players so therefore the laws are different.
People bleat about consistency but want different interpretations depending on what form players are in,who they play for,who they are playing against,what league they are in.

 

Of course it does. Because what is an ‘opportunity’ to one may not be for another. Likewise, what is ‘obvious’ to one ref may not be to another. Eg distance from goal - if a ball is played ten yards in front of Mo Salah or Erling Haaland 40 yards from goal he’s highly likely to get to it and shoot before defenders or goalkeeper can intercept it. James Hanson? Not so much. Same situation; different players. One’s an obvious opportunity to score, the other is a vague possibility. Nothing in the guidance alters that difference.[/QUOTE]


I see exactly where you are coming from. As I say often…It’s all in the words ( And individual interpretation) . Nobody is right, nobody is wrong if there is scope for different interpretations.
I wonder if we see examples if it tonight compared to what we usually witness in the khazi league?

Ref tonight Scott Oldham who is a lower league ref operating in L1/2 predominantly, the best I can see. Can’t say he’s reffed us ?

 

As long as the 30 odd subjective calls the ref has to make in the game go the way you want them to then I'm sure you'll be happy with the performance.

 

I genuinely can't see how the ref explaining why they thought it was a pen / red card / foul etc will do anything other than inflame the situation.

Ref: The red card decision has been awarded based on the judgement that there was 'excessive force' and you were 'endangering an opponent'.

Players / fans / coaches: Ah well that's fair enough. We were furious at the decision but now you've explained it we can see where you're coming from.

That dialogue will never happen. Not in the culture of this sport. Instead it will lead to even more consternation and outrage.

 

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not saying that the DOGSO law ‘should’ be applied differently at different levels. I’m saying that I think referees must unconsciously make different decisions based on the players they’re officiating. Because I believe they must unconsciously take that into account when deciding whether a goalscoring ‘opportunity’ is actually an opportunity and, if so, whether it is ‘obvious’. The law says an obvious goalscoring opportunity, not a possible one.
And also that fans of different clubs will have different views about what is a DOGSO partly conditioned by what they watch week in, week out. Part of the controversy about the Shepherd incident is that we so frequently see situations where L2 players bodge breakaways that many people felt that it wasn’t an obvious opportunity at all.
I think inconsistency is built into the wording of the DOGSO law because it all depends on subjective assessment of what is an opportunity and whether or not it is obvious.

 

It'd be interesting for sure. I just can't see it leading to anything other than more contention. When the refs explain their decisions to players on the pitch it doesn't make a jot of difference. I anything it just leads to more confrontation. I also think that the rules of rugby and American football are far more binary by nature of the sport.

 

Behave yourself. The ref doesn't determine the opportunity based on who the chance falls to. He would then be making the decision based on personal bias towards the player.[/QUOTE]
Yes...and some on here said there is now way 37 year old Huntington would have got across, but had it been Crichlow he would have had a chance

 

Not sure about that BT. I like and watch a lot of rugby union and I still haven't got a clue why most penalties are given.

 

Not if it's absolutely smashed 30 foot above your head there's not. Which is kind of the point.

Behave yourself. The ref doesn't determine the opportunity based on who the chance falls to. He would then be making the decision based on personal bias towards the player.[/QUOTE]

I can't even get my head around anyone thinking that could actually be true let alone someone who actually watches football.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I haven’t joined the ref fan club yet so I’m largely sat on the fence

Seriously I hope the game has minimal officialdom interference and the official lets it flow . They make a far better spectacle for the one’s that matter… supporters of no matter the clubs involved . There is nothing worse than an interfering busy body The worst…the ones that think every hard tackle “has to be a foul” followed by a booking. Similar to the ones we have seen this season in some of our games. Enjoy the game I will absolutely.