SPA/DOGSO/DOG Clip 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- There is no doubt the yellow defender #14 was beaten and fouled the attacker. The question lies in, Is this DOGSO? 1st - At the time the pass is made, the attacker is level at best with #14 and behind all other defenders, so Number of defenders is yes. Distance to goal is yes and direction of play is yes. So we are down to distance to ball or possession. This is what saves the defender. The ball is played long enough and the goalkeeper is playing a high enough line that there is doubt as to whether the forward had an OBVIOUS scoring opportunity. This makes the misconduct a caution for SPA and not DOGSO as the last qualification was not met.
hey Jason, but there was a VAR check by FIFA panel and they also agreed with the DOGSO call. So, I agree the referee made the right call.
VAR checks for clear and obvious errors. While the decision may be acceptable, it does not mean it is the preferred decision. SPA would of been the preferred decision for me as I believe the goalkeeper is getting to the ball first.
@@11fleek if you look at closely at the moment the attacker gets fouled(0.11 sec), the attacker had a very good probability to get the ball first before the GK.
@@daviddonayre2654 very good probability is not obvious. Remember it is Denial of an *Obvious* Goal Scoring Opportunity.
These players know exactly what their doing, claiming innocence but still holding back or pulling down the attacker on her run
very close play! my instinct on first watch was SPA, but looking at it again with more scrutiny, DOGSO turns out to be a completely defensible decision
How its defensible decision..its clearly spa not dogso
1. No of defender - ok
2. Distance toward the goal - ok
3. Likelihood control of the ball - no
4. General direction of the ball - ok
If all four met then its dogso
Theres a small pull but contact is allowed. does this contact cause the attacker to fall like she does or does she let herself fall, looking to draw the foul?
The offender fell herself. There was contact between both players. I wouldn't have called this.