Referee Review
Why was this decision made?
See the key points from a referee’s perspective
Show explanation
Referee Review
Why was this decision made?
See the key points from a referee’s perspective
Show explanationHow the footage and Laws apply
The question is whether the four factors for DOGSO were met. These are the distance between the offence and the goal, the general direction of play, the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball, and the location and number of defenders and attackers. The most debatable factor here is whether another Cerezo player could have covered. The footage shows Cerezo's No. 97 closest to the incident, but at the moment of the foul the player was diagonally behind and to the left of the challenge. The referee appears to have judged that the cover could not arrive in time and that the four factors supported a sending-off. Small differences in distance and running lines make this a very close decision. Watch the moment of contact and consider how you would judge it.
Relevant Laws
Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct (Sending-off offences – denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity)
Official references
Check the wording of the Laws
The links above lead to official IFAB and JFA resources. The application of the Laws to this incident is the author’s analysis and is not an official view of IFAB, JFA or the competition organiser.
Want to test your understanding of this decision?
Build confidence with more Laws of the Game questions in the app.
Try more questions in the appRelated Scenes
[DOGSO] A red card for stopping a counter-attack, with the referee judging whether the offence was inside or outside the penalty area | 2026/27 J1 League Matchweek 4 Gamba Osaka vs Sanfrecce Hiroshima
[No Foul / VAR Intervention] An on-field review of contact between a goalkeeper and an attacking player, with no offence given | 2025 J1 League Matchweek 26 Sanfrecce Hiroshima vs Gamba Osaka