How Barcelona's Ousmane Dembele escaped a red card and the rest of the week's biggest calls

Banaspati -- The football globe calls the 17th min red card to Milan's Fikayo Tomori for rejecting the obvious objective of racking up the opportunity (DOGSO) and succeeding in charge a travesty, lamenting the injustice of the call. Weeps of the "games are gone," sounding out of followers. But, the real essence of the issue isn't whether the penalty in shapes the criminal offense, but instead whether there was a criminal offense at all. What the debate should be is whether the top equips body contact that occurred remains in itself nasty because everything depends on how it responded to. There's no chance withing the rules to support a charge and yellow card, that can't occur, so the question is was the event nasty at all? Let's have a look at the call et cetera of the significant choices from the Champs Organization Matchday 4.

Most likely to the legislation, any DOGSO offense that occurred by holding, drawing, or pressing has constantly been a charge and red card. That held also before a current change to the legislation was executed. Before the 2016-17 period the Worldwide Footballing Organization Board, the company in charge of the rules, made an extremely noteworthy legislation change changing sending offenses inside the charge location for DOGSO to avoid what was considered a "triple-punishment". Before the change, a gamer that dedicated a DOGSO violation in the charge location was immediately red-carded and was handed a one-video game suspension, as well as handing out a charge.

The legislation change was modified to the following:

"Where a gamer dedicates a violation versus a challenger within their charge locations which denies a challenger an apparent goal-scoring opportunity and the umpire honors a charging kick, the culprit is warned if the violation was an effort to play the ball; in all various other circumstances (e.g. holding, drawing, pressing, no opportunity to play the sphere and so on.) the upsetting gamer must be sent."

That modified DOGSO in the charge location to be a yellow card just if there's an effort to play the sphere. Authorities are asked to freely use "attempt to play the sphere" in an application. However, DOGSO red card for triple-punishment was intentionally maintained for plays that were unclear attempts to play the sphere but simply tactical and not football activities.

The legislation is clear in this circumstance if the umpire determines (1) a nasty is dedicated in the charge location, (2) that it satisfied the requirements to be a rejecting obvious objective racking up an opportunity, and (3) the nasty wasn't an "attempt to play the sphere" after that the upsetting gamer must be sent.

Provided the way the guideline is written, the debate is whether a nasty occurred, to begin with by Tomori versus Mount. Exists real physical contact by the equipment on Mount? Yes. Does this degree of contact rise to a nasty that requires a charge and red card in the context of this play? The answer here's no. Both gamers are fighting for not just belongings, but also for spatial benefit when at first reaching the sphere. There's nothing else protector that can intervene in the play apart from the goalkeeper once Tomori is ruined, but when you do not decrease the play and take still shots but instead watch it at complete speed, you can see Mount fights through the contact and makes a strong attempt at reaching the sphere before the keeper can obstruct it. This type of play, at this speed, and this degree, is a common, expected degree of football in regards to physical contact meaning that authorities often would certainly not call this an offense.

Exists debate to be had on this play? Yes! It is a borderline circumstance, which is another reason it's not appropriate for VAR to suggest it down for a charge or overturn of a charge. It's not an obvious mistake. In truth, I can fully value the umpire in actual time thinking there suffices physical contact and holding by Tomori to call it a nasty, charge and red card but on review, paradoxically best angles are the ones from an objective line which the umpire would certainly never have a sight of, and those are the ones that verify the contact is simply not enough prominent to the preferred choice of no nasty, to begin with. However, Tomori does take danger by extending his equipment not just once but two times, and consequently, the choice can go in either case. So the call itself is a shut one but it is important to keep in mind that if it's nasty, it also must be a charge, red card, and one video game suspension.

Another DOGSO choice from Tottenham vs. Frankfurt

While we are having fun in the DOGSO globe, a short refresher on the 4 factors to consider when a nasty increases to a rejecting obvious objective racking up the opportunity (DOGSO). In a previous column on DOGSO, we looked at how referees must represent 4 factors to consider currently the nasty occurs to find the right choice:

Range in between the violation and the objective.

Basic instructions of the play.

Possibility of maintaining or acquiring control of the sphere.

Place and variety of protectors.

Take the 4 DOGSO factors to consider and we have 2 great instances to overcome from MD4 that occurred in the Tottenham Hotspur v. Eintracht Frankfurt.

In the 59th min a Frankfurt protector, Tuta, dedicates a holding violation versus Tottenham's Heung-Min Child after Child once again sheds him on the dribble. Tuta was issued a yellow card for quitting a promising attack, but since it was his second yellow card (he had simply received one versus Child just 5 mins before for a tactical nasty after Child beat him), he was issued a red as well and rejected from the video game.

Considering that the outcome was red in either case, virtually it didn't impact the suit but the talking point here's why this had not been a straight red card for DOGSO since it seemed like Tuta was the last protector and Child would certainly have been going towards objective unopposed. Using the 4 criteria had to transform the stopping a promising attack right into a DOGSO (and since the offense occurred outside the charge location it could just be a red card if determined DOGSO) you'll see among the criteria is not met - place and variety of protectors and because of that, authorities will punish for just stopping a promising attack which is a yellow card violation just.

It's critical to keep in mind that the minute you determine whether an offense is a DOGSO is the minute the real nasty occurs. I prefer to appear at it such as taking a "snapshot" of the minute from both the facility umpire's perspective and the aide umpire's perspective and with each item of the challenge in mind, it's after that important for the authorities to communicate to obtain these choices correctly. Typically, the facility official has instructions of play and range to objective and the aide umpire assists with the place and variety of protectors because of their beneficial position to appear throughout the line and see where everybody goes to the moment the nasty occurs. Both authorities can assist each other when it comes to the possibility of maintaining or acquiring control of the sphere, and the aide referee's interaction becomes also more crucial when there's a hefty touch and the facility umpire cannot by angle value whether the gamer can reach the sphere before the goalkeeper.

This is the snapshot of the moment Tuta dedicates the nasty versus the Child. As you can see we have 2 more protectors that lie close to and "behind" the sphere in the sense they can reasonably protect that sphere if Child had not been fouled. So we just have to quit a promising attack and a (second) yellow card for Tuta.

Here's the snapshot for the 90th min nasty in the same video game as Frankfurt's Hrvoje Smolcic prolongs a leg to prevent the assailant from reaching the sphere. Sometimes in the snapshot, we see everything we need. 1. At the moment the nasty is dedicated, there is nothing else protectors that can reasonably protect the sphere before the assailant strikes on objective, apart from the keeper. 2. The sphere is very shut to the objective. 3. The instructions are direct although slightly to the right of the objective, not enough to substantively affect instructions of a leading degree assailant from obtaining a fired-off. 4. Assailant has complete belongings on the dribble, it's not a hefty touch where the possibility of reaching the sphere is outweighed because the keeper will arrive first. And, significantly, it's in the charge location and since authorities are recommended to freely use "attempt to play the sphere" we would certainly consider this an effort (although the sphere is previous) and admonish it with a yellow card and charge for DOGSO.

Purposeful handling violation by Manchester City's Riyad Mahrez

In the 11th min of Manchester City's suit versus Copenhagen, we see a beautiful strike by City's Rodri hit the rear of the net, just for it to outcome in an approved VAR suggestion to disqualify the beautiful objective because of a purposeful handling violation by City's Riyad Mahrez in the assaulting stage of play ("APP") before the objective was racked up.

I'm uncertain if the football globe discovers this is questionable because they do not think it's purposeful handling or even if they are upset to see a charm taken back by the correct choice, but unfortunately this is pretty clear.

There's no rejecting it touched the hand of Mahrez, and as I discussed in the column after Matchday 1, this isn't an offense of "unintentional handling by an assailant" prominent up to the objective by a teammate (which was gotten rid of from the laws in 2021-22). As a basic guideline (wordplay here intended), not every contact to the hand is handling but Mahrez's is for the following factors:

Mahrez is watching the sphere the whole time and understands that the sphere will land before him

Mahrez doesn't make any attempt to move his equipment "away" from the sphere but rather maintains it outstretched before him and softens the drop of the sphere.

In not removing his equipment but enabling it to "cradle" and bring the sphere down, he acquires control of it totally with his equipment/hand.

In the context of this play, and considering the football concept that "football anticipates gamers to be penalized for handling if they gain belongings/control from the sphere and gain a significant benefit (score objective or objective racking up opportunity)," this is the correct choice to translate the play as a purposeful handling violation.

Significantly, as mentioned, this isn't a decision that is unintentional handling prominent to an objective by a teammate why it was invalidated. Further, this can be evaluated because it occurred in the APP which is the reviewable home window for VAR to appear at any events that would certainly negate an objective. VAR succeeded to suggest this to the official, although it took a beautiful objective away.

2 direct red cards missed out on

Surprisingly, Matchday 4 brought with it 2 direct red cards missed out on by both the umpire and the VAR, one in the Bayer Leverkusen vs. Porto suit and another in Barcelona's attract versus Inter Milan. There is a bit more shake room for VAR in the Porto play to but it should have still been suggested and in the Barcelona video game, the event 100% should have been suggested as a red card.

There was a great deal of fascinating phone telephone calls and VAR needs throughout the Bayer Leverkusen v Porto video game, however, this stands apart among them all. In the 32nd min, Porto's Joao Mario Neto Lopez dedicates a late, determined lunge with speed and force straight right into Leverkursen's #10 Demirbay ankle joint/shin. How there had not been an outcry by everybody on the pitch, I am uncertain, as I've seen much much less outcome right into the mayhem

Why did the VAR not suggest it down after that? After a shut replay, the VAR would certainly have been concentrated on the point of contact. Perhaps that's what convinced him that it had not been an obvious mistake to suggest, because after a slow dip into fifty percent speed you see Mario's front suggestion of his studs/boot show up to glimpse off, or otherwise go straight through the shin. Also, there may not have been an angle to permit the VAR to feel great about how a lot of contacts were made on Demirbay. However, to focus entirely on this item loses football's understanding totally on the context of this play and why it's an obvious mistake to not have provided a red card.

This must be looked at on both the up-close replay and the routine video game video cam. In the up-close, it helps one determine what component of the player's foot makes contact - at or over the ankle joint - and the setting of contact, the studs of Mario's cleat.

Currently, the routine video game video cam shows the complete tale and gratitude for why it's a red card. The video game video cam shows Mario making a hefty touch, making a desperate play by straight lunging with a straight leg, and introduces right into the have fun with speed, the contact has force behind it, and both the speed and force go straight right into the ankle joint/shin of Demirbay. Mario is fully aware his challenger exists which is why he makes the determined play leading to Demirbay going about 5 feet right into the air after contact. Yes, watch it again completely speed. I'm overemphasizing, but Demirbay is sent out right into orbit by this contact.

We don't want these kinds of tackles to occur in video games. By not calling it, we motivate it or at the very least set the tone for the remainder of the gamers that this type of play and contact serves. This tackle can finish a player's profession and leave them with a long-lasting injury.

The second missed out on a red card happened in the week's greatest suit. Relying on the 78th min of the Barcelona v. Inter suit, this is a total mistake by the authorities on the area and the VAR.

This minute is a ruthless activity by Dembele. The real nasty by itself is a major nasty play and boundaries on fierce conduct. A major nasty play is a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of a challenger or uses excessive force or brutality. Fierce conduct is when a gamer uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality versus a challenger when not challenging for the sphere.

What differentiates them from each other is typical whether the sphere remains in play and reasonably nearby which is why this would certainly be preferred as major nasty play, however, there's a reasonable disagreement for why it wasn't a difficulty for the sphere and could be considered fierce conduct as Dembele is not going for the sphere.

Someone, please look at Inter's Matteo Darmian as Dembele enters into this challenge with speed, and force, using his studs right into the growing leg of Darmian after the sphere is removed by him. The sphere is gone. Dembele uses a ruthless activity versus Darmian that's considered to be "scare tactics nasty" whether because Dembele had an axe to work or was simply frustrated generally.

In either case, the authorities in the area and the AR beside this play cannot miss out on this bet which is - borderline fierce conduct. And if missed out on, the VAR has nothing else choice but to suggest it down for a feasible red card for a major nasty dip into minimal. the proof here's clear and persuading that it's a mistake to not issue a red card to Dembele.