The Referee Forum: Leeds v Preston - DOGSO - The Referee Forum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Leeds v Preston - DOGSO

#1 User is offline   Danny-r 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,372
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, Leeds

Posted 21 December 2015 - 12:31 AM

https://twitter.com/...627044964585472

Clear error for me there. Regardless of whether it's handball or not which is debatable. I don't believe that's DOGSO. The defender to the right of the GK is covering and the one on the left is potentially covering.

#2 User is offline   barstewart 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: 18-March 14

Posted 21 December 2015 - 01:58 AM

Bad replay quality — but I can't see a hand ball in there. And yes, the defenders were on hand to prevent an OGSO.

This post has been edited by barstewart: 21 December 2015 - 01:59 AM


#3 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 December 2015 - 07:55 AM

View PostDanny-r, on 21 December 2015 - 12:31 AM, said:

https://twitter.com/...627044964585472

Clear error for me there. Regardless of whether it's handball or not which is debatable. I don't believe that's DOGSO. The defender to the right of the GK is covering and the one on the left is potentially covering.

Penalty to Preston, can't have Dirty Leeds winning anytime soon, they haven't suffered enough yet for being good in the 70s :lol:/>

#4 User is offline   Refelee 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: 23-January 10

Posted 22 December 2015 - 04:41 AM

Better quality video on the Sky Sports website - should work if you're in the UK (elsewhere, only if using VPN or smart DNS):

Leeds vs Preston

I agree, it doesn't look like a handling offence but I think it's a close call as to whether either of the potentially covering defenders would have got there in time.

#5 User is offline   HoldenMan 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 22 December 2015 - 10:01 PM

I think it's unlikely the defender would have covered - he was parallel to the attacker and it certainly had enough force to reach the goal. It may have slowed down right at the end, maybe. I don't think it's unreasonable to say the defender wouldn't have got it - it's only an obvious 'opportunity' after all. 'Pretty unlikely' to get there would satisfy that.

And the referee probably had a better view than the camera as to whether it was on target. Can't tell if it was a foul or not, but after awarding a foul, I'm ok with the RC.

#6 User is offline   Danny-r 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,372
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, Leeds

Posted 22 December 2015 - 10:03 PM

The ban was overturned on appeal.

#7 User is offline   Danny-r 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,372
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, Leeds

Posted 22 December 2015 - 10:04 PM

I think the fact there is debate over whether the defenders would cover means it's not obvious.

#8 User is offline   HoldenMan 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 23 December 2015 - 10:09 AM

View PostDanny-r, on 23 December 2015 - 08:04 AM, said:

I think the fact there is debate over whether the defenders would cover means it's not obvious.


That's not what 'not obvious' means.

#9 User is offline   Danny-r 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,372
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, Leeds

Posted 23 December 2015 - 02:12 PM

View PostHoldenMan, on 23 December 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

That's not what 'not obvious' means.


Obviously, but the point I'm making is that surely if there's any doubt in an officials mind, then it's not DOGSO.

#10 User is offline   HoldenMan 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 23 December 2015 - 09:36 PM

View PostDanny-r, on 24 December 2015 - 12:12 AM, said:

Obviously, but the point I'm making is that surely if there's any doubt in an officials mind, then it's not DOGSO.


There wasn't doubt in this official's mind though :D/>

And an official can claim there wasn't an OGSO and be wrong.

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users