Ozturk - give him a Yellow ....

[pib]

You’re just never going to get a red for handball on the halfway line when there are other defenders around. Fantasy island.

As for bringing it back after the advantage... defeats the object of advantage really. The advantage is played to give you the opportunity to play out a better attack than having a free kick. We played out that attack and failed to take advantage of it. Not the refs fault.

I agree Ozturk is a cynical bar steward but the ref got the decision absolutely spot on last night. Nothing you can do about it.

[eastender]

Didn’t he do same in home game?

And should have given a blatent pen away last year away?

Should have been 2 pens he gave away last season, 1 on Marquis 1st half and 1 on Butler 2nd half.

[Bentley Bullet]

You should be given the advantage to score, and if you fail to do so the original free kick should be awarded.

[pib]

Advantage isn’t about making sure the attacking team score, it’s about letting the attack play out.

Why should you get two bites at it for one foul?

[Bentley Bullet]

You should get two bites of the cherry because it would reduce the effectiveness of persistent cheats like Ozturk.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Advantage isn’t about making sure the attacking team score, it’s about letting the attack play out.

Why should you get two bites at it for one foul?

The current approach to the  Advantage thing is to let play continue and if an advantage doesn't develop, THEN you can bring the play to a halt and penalise the original infringement.

Last night was a debatable one. I think the ref was correct to apply the advantage, because Taylor bursting through was a better situation for us than a free kick for the handball. And I think the play went on long enough to justify the decision that an advantage HAD occurred, and that it was our error (Taylor's slip) that resulted in the move breaking down.

My point last night was that, had the ball not gone to Taylor, Ozturk was in serious trouble, because he had DOSGO'd. As it was, he was saved by the fact that, in denying  one GSO, he inadvertently created another. That have the ref the opportunity to ignore the fact that the original offence amounted to DOSGO, and instead, to penalise him merely for deliberate handball.

There's a lot of comment on the Sunderland board essentially saying the same thing. Lucky lad.

I wonder if he's a serial cheat or if he saves it for us. That's three potentially game-changing, blatant infringements he's committed against us in the past 9 months.

[IDM]

I think we are in agreement here, ball doesn’t drop nicely to Taylor = red card.

Equally, Taylor doesn’t stumble and he gets a shooting chance to make it 1-0..

Fine margins.. again..

[pib]

Advantage isn’t about making sure the attacking team score, it’s about letting the attack play out.

Why should you get two bites at it for one foul?

The current approach to the  Advantage thing is to let play continue and if an advantage doesn't develop, THEN you can bring the play to a halt and penalise the original infringement.

Last night was a debatable one. I think the ref was correct to apply the advantage, because Taylor bursting through was a better situation for us than a free kick for the handball. And I think the play went on long enough to justify the decision that an advantage HAD occurred, and that it was our error (Taylor's slip) that resulted in the move breaking down.

My point last night was that, had the ball not gone to Taylor, Ozturk was in serious trouble, because he had DOSGO'd. As it was, he was saved by the fact that, in denying  one GSO, he inadvertently created another. That have the ref the opportunity to ignore the fact that the original offence amounted to DOSGO, and instead, to penalise him merely for deliberate handball.

There's a lot of comment on the Sunderland board essentially saying the same thing. Lucky lad.

I wonder if he's a serial cheat or if he saves it for us. That's three potentially game-changing, blatant infringements he's committed against us in the past 9 months.

Billy - can I ask when you last saw a player sent off for a foul or handball on the half way line with other defending players around them (even if stopped a promising attack or denied what you consider a goal scoring opportunity)? Genuine question, because I can’t remember if I’ve ever seen it happen.

I’ll just leave some snippets from the laws of the game here for anyone to interpret how they wish. I would pre-empt with my personal view that I would categorise the attack in question last night as “promising” rather than a clear GSO...

“Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs....

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“

“ CAUTIONS FOR UNSPORTING BEHAVIOUR

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
- commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
- commits a foul 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”

[Pancho Regan]

Several Sunderland fans on their forum saying Ozturk was lucky not to get sent off.

That speaks volumes to me.

[BillyStubbsTears]

What about this one pib?

01:55.

https://youtu.be/YrEZD2hX4hg

The issue with distance from goal is that the referee must judge whether, in the absence of the infringement, the attacker would have had an obvious opportunity to be in a position to get a goalscoring chance. There is no hard and fast rule on the distance - what matters is the position of other defenders, and the likelihood of them being able to prevent an attempt at goal in a 1 Vs 1 situation.

That's why the example above was correctly judged to be DOGSO. And it's why Ozturk's should have been last night. Regardless of the fact that the offence took place 45 yards from goal, Ennis was sprinting through a static back line, and without the handball, there was very little chance of a defender being able to make a meaningful intervention before Ennis could have got off a shot from the edge of the box.

As I say, the ref was spared having to make that decision by the ball dropping to Taylor. But that doesn't change the fact that what Ozturk did was a clear and deliberate DOSGO.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS.

The answer to problem 156 here in the book You Are the Ref by Keith Hackett is illuminating.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jh9eDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=dogso+2019&source=bl&ots=aZ_aVDuUkI&sig=ACfU3U3jSagtm_dhByvUfDZ_JIdgHGBBpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjc_pmO8p_nAhVWQEEAHbt2CEg4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=dogso%202019&f=false

Although this link doesn't tell you what problem 156 was, Hackett's answer makes it sound remarkably like the case last night. And Hackett indicates that he would consider it DOSGO, even though it occurred 40 yards from goal if
-The striker was moving towards goal (check, in last night's case)
- the striker would have been able to control the ball (check)
- the striker would have had a genuine chance to get in a shot before the defenders could have intervened (check).

The more in think about it, the worse a decision it looks.

[IDM]

Apart from the ball falling immediately to Taylor in as good a position.  Otherwise it’s a dogso..

[PDX_Rover]

He's prevented Ennis from a clear goal-scoring opportunity. No defender anywhere near him. For me, the fact that it fell to Taylor is irrelevant. He played the advantage and when there was none he should have brought play back and sent Ozturk off. There's no real deterrent if the punishment is simply taking a yellow card to prevent a clear goal-scoring opportunity. It's professional foul play anf this c*nt is a repeat offender.

[drfchound]

What about this one pib?

01:55.

https://youtu.be/YrEZD2hX4hg

The issue with distance from goal is that the referee must judge whether, in the absence of the infringement, the attacker would have had an obvious opportunity to be in a position to get a goalscoring chance. There is no hard and fast rule on the distance - what matters is the position of other defenders, and the likelihood of them being able to prevent an attempt at goal in a 1 Vs 1 situation.

That's why the example above was correctly judged to be DOGSO. And it's why Ozturk's should have been last night. Regardless of the fact that the offence took place 45 yards from goal, Ennis was sprinting through a static back line, and without the handball, there was very little chance of a defender being able to make a meaningful intervention before Ennis could have got off a shot from the edge of the box.

As I say, the ref was spared having to make that decision by the ball dropping to Taylor. But that doesn't change the fact that what Ozturk did was a clear and deliberate DOSGO.

That one in the link BST is a sending off all day and it doesn’t matter how many rules are quoted, the same should have applied to Ozturk.
He deliberately handled the ball to stop Ennis going clear.

.

[NewDonny]

If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..

Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.

Absolutely correct, advantage played, no idea what Taylor was doing tripping over and then trying to make out he was fouled but thats another subject, then the referee should have penalised Ozturk for the handball once that sequence of play had broken down and finished.

[donnievic]

If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..

Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.

Absolutely correct, advantage played, no idea what Taylor was doing tripping over and then trying to make out he was fouled but thats another subject, then the referee should have penalised Ozturk for the handball once that sequence of play had broken down and finished.

he did he gave him a yellow card which was the correct decision

[NewDonny]

If football allowed an advantage play that can be brought back, as in rugby, that might have worked..

Football does allow advantage to be played in that way. It's down to referee if they choose to or not.

Absolutely correct, advantage played, no idea what Taylor was doing tripping over and then trying to make out he was fouled but thats another subject, then the referee should have penalised Ozturk for the handball once that sequence of play had broken down and finished.

he did he gave him a yellow card which was the correct decision

OK agreed, what I should have also said was that it was a deliberate handball preventing a goal scoring opportunity so that yellow should have been a red.

[PDX_Rover]

The thing that p1sses me off is it’s deliberate foul play. Ozturk knew that if he didn’t stop the ball, we had a clear goal scoring opportunity.

As a result of Ozturk’s actions, Ennis hasn’t had the opportunity on goal he would have, same as if Ozturk, as the last man, would have hauled Ennis down.

The outcome is the same.

The fact that it fell to Taylor is irrelevant. I’m sure if the ball had been a bit lower Ozturk would have caught it with both hands.

It really should be a sending off offence.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The thing that p1sses me off is it’s deliberate foul play. Ozturk knew that if he didn’t stop the ball, we had a clear goal scoring opportunity.

As a result of Ozturk’s actions, Ennis hasn’t had the opportunity on goal he would have, same as if Ozturk, as the last man, would have hauled Ennis down.

The outcome is the same.

The fact that it fell to Taylor is irrelevant. I’m sure if the ball had been a bit lower Ozturk would have caught it with both hands.

It really should be a sending off offence.

Morally, it is precisely the sort of "professional foul" that the DOGSO ruling was introduced to penalise.

[donnievic]

For me It did not deny a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity,just wonder if you would say the same if one of our players did it

[drfchound]

Well some Sunderland fans are saying he was lucky not to be sent off.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Vic. Why not?

[Donnywolf]

For me It did not deny a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity,just wonder if you would say the same if one of our players did it

I would hope I would as I try to see both sides. For example I think Cam John could probably have been on an early Yellow Card cos that was clearly a foul early doors. Cant see why the Ref didnt give a foul

Sunderland Fans were saying Ozturk was lucky it was not a Red - so I wonder what they thought at our place when Ozturk got 2 hands on the ball and for me that was a clearer opportunity for us with 2 Players clean through on goal albeit on the half way line.

Get him a Keepers Shirt I say

[dickos1]

I agree it wasn’t a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity he was about 45 yards from goal with other defenders around

[BillyStubbsTears]

I agree it wasn’t a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity he was about 45 yards from goal with other defenders around

He was breaking through a static line. If Ozturk hadn't handled, by the time Ennis would have picked up the ball, he'd have been 35 yards out, sprinting at goal with all the defenders behind him and no defender within 3 yards of him.

Stone cold DOGSO.

[IDM]

Agreed BST but in the split second that this happened a good chance opened up for Taylor.

Bearing in mind that’s all the ref had to make a call. 

It’s borderline, and debate worthy, but for me the yellow card was the correct decision in both games.

[donnievic]

Vic. Why not?

because for me he still had a lot to do(only seen it in real game time so same as the referee not seen any replays of it)but as fast as Ennis is would think still have had defenders level with or looked it so for me wasn’t clear and obvious.

[dickos1]

I agree it wasn’t a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity he was about 45 yards from goal with other defenders around

He was breaking through a static line. If Ozturk hadn't handled, by the time Ennis would have picked up the ball, he'd have been 35 yards out, sprinting at goal with all the defenders behind him and no defender within 3 yards of him.

Stone cold DOGSO.

You did say all this after the home game but then changed after you saw the freeze frame?
Have you seen a freeze frame of this incident yet?

[BillyStubbsTears]

I did after the home game. And I was wrong when I saw the freeze frame.

That's why I ran the streaming video back and replayed it on Friday night before I gave my two pennorth. 

When the handball occurred, Ennis was sprinting past a static Ozturk who would have had no chance whatsoever of recovering. He was the deepest defender.

Ennis had sprinted past a static Willis, who had woken up to the danger and had started to sprint back, but he was already a yard and a half behind Ennis when the offence happened and still had to get up to top speed.

The only other defender remotely in play was Lynch, who was 15 yards to the left of the play, and slightly ahead of Ozturk. He would have had to have jet boots on to have got anywhere close to Ennis.

In light of the narrative by Hackett that I posted on Saturday, that was a stonewall DOGSO.

[pib]

You have a more favourable view of Ennis's pace, touch and composure in front of goal than I do.

Be interesting to know if there are any qualified officials on here and whether they have a view.