⚽Match Thread vs. Chesterfield FC 13.05.23 [NL PO F]

[SwalePie]

[LincsPie]

The caution would be under law 12. Slocombe DOGSO by double kicking it.

Law 12 - the DOGSO 'bit':

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own
penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence
was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off

Still not a caution for the second touch - the quote above from Law 12 clearly states the DOGSO caution comes into play when a penalty kick is awarded for an offence, so not for a second kick of a goal kick where an IDFK is awarded - how could it be a DOGSO if for example all the opposing opposing players are at the half way line at the taking of the goal kick?

I know we give refs a bashing a lot of the time, but he got this one right - to our benefit as well!

[Jeekay56]

John Bostock explains the 'Panenka'.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1658211443378888733

[Another one]

Quite a good summary - https://theathletic.com/4513204/2023...-mair-wrexham/

[OchPie]

Law 12 - the DOGSO 'bit':

Still not a caution for the second touch - the quote above from Law 12 clearly states the DOGSO caution comes into play when a penalty kick is awarded for an offence, so not for a second kick of a goal kick where an IDFK is awarded - how could it be a DOGSO if for example all the opposing opposing players are at the half way line at the taking of the goal kick?

I know we give refs a bashing a lot of the time, but he got this one right - to our benefit as well!

I too think he got it right, but Sam was lucky. The Chesterfield fans are up in arms about it because of this video:



The difference in this case and the Notts case is pretty obvious from the rules of the game:

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)


In the video above, the attacker is heading straight for the goal and just about to kick the ball into the net. In our game, Dallas (I think it was) is running towards the corner flag. Had Dallas been in front of Sam, rather than to off to the side of him, and been closer as to actually be contesting the ball, Sam could have seen red. I guess he could have got yellow if the ref saw it as stopping a promising attack, but I don't think Dallas was close enough.

Some are saying he should have got a yellow for the penalty but that looked to me much more a promising attack than a DOGSO:

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, including if a player:
• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball

[maddogslater]

Can't find any stats on the game, shots possession etc.

[durhampie]

Can't find any stats on the game, shots possession etc.

We won and that is the only stat that matters....

[durhampie]

Law 12 - the DOGSO 'bit':



Still not a caution for the second touch - the quote above from Law 12 clearly states the DOGSO caution comes into play when a penalty kick is awarded for an offence, so not for a second kick of a goal kick where an IDFK is awarded - how could it be a DOGSO if for example all the opposing opposing players are at the half way line at the taking of the goal kick?

I know we give refs a bashing a lot of the time, but he got this one right - to our benefit as well!

That decision cancelled out the the stone wall penalty we were not given against Dagenham...

[caj85]

Law 12 - the DOGSO 'bit':



Still not a caution for the second touch - the quote above from Law 12 clearly states the DOGSO caution comes into play when a penalty kick is awarded for an offence, so not for a second kick of a goal kick where an IDFK is awarded - how could it be a DOGSO if for example all the opposing opposing players are at the half way line at the taking of the goal kick?

I know we give refs a bashing a lot of the time, but he got this one right - to our benefit as well!

If you're not classing that as a DOGSO then it comes under the below line.

Law 12 -Commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball.

why put in a scenario which didn't happen (for example all the opposing opposing players are at the half way line at the taking of the goal kick)

[countygump]

If you're not classing that as a DOGSO then it comes under the below line.

Law 12 -Commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball.

why put in a scenario which didn't happen (for example all the opposing opposing players are at the half way line at the taking of the goal kick)

Bet the Chessie fans were kicking their DOGSO hard after the match, sorry..............