Summary
Kepa Arrizabalaga was not shown a red card after a challenge involving Manchester City winger Jeremy Doku. The decision sparked debate because the basic question under the Laws of the Game is straightforward: did the goalkeeper deny an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity (DOGSO) by an act that merits a sending‑off, or was it a genuine attempt to play the ball that should attract at most a yellow (or a penalty if it occurred inside the area)?
What the rules say
– DOGSO: A player who denies an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity by an offence is sent off (red card). Key factors referees consider are distance to goal, direction of play, control of the ball, number of defenders, and the likelihood of the attacker scoring.
– The penalty‑area exception: If the foul that denies an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity occurs inside the offender’s penalty area and the referee judges the defender (or goalkeeper) made a genuine attempt to play the ball, the punishment is a yellow card plus a penalty, not a red. If it was not a genuine attempt to play the ball (for example a trip or pull to stop a clear chance), it remains a red.
– VAR: Video review intervenes only for clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents. If the on‑field decision is within acceptable interpretation of the laws, VAR will normally not change it.
Applying that framework to the Kepa–Doku incident
Without replay frames here, the decision can be examined by the principles referees use:
1) Attempt to play the ball: If Kepa went for the ball and made a play on it, that supports not issuing a red. Goalkeepers often dive at attackers’ feet to reach the ball; contact in the course of a genuine attempt usually removes DOGSO red status inside the box.
2) Contact and effect: If the contact was minimal or incidental and the attacker stayed on his feet or still had a realistic chance, referees are likelier to consider it a foul but not DOGSO. If Kepa used his arms/legs to pull or trip Doku and that clearly stopped a run on goal, that would point toward red.
3) Positioning and likelihood of scoring: How close was Doku to goal, was he running towards the goal, and were other defenders in position? If Doku was already well positioned and had a clear path with a high chance of scoring, that supports a red. If he was wide, off‑balance, or there were covering defenders, it weakens a DOGSO case.
4) Severity and recklessness: A reckless or dangerously late challenge can be a straight red for serious foul play even if DOGSO criteria are borderline.
Why the referee might have avoided a red
– If the referee judged Kepa made a genuine attempt to get the ball and the contact was part of that attempt, the penalty‑area exception would convert what otherwise could be a red into a yellow (or no red).
– If replays showed the attacker’s control or direction meant the chance was not ‘obvious’ in the referee’s view, officials may have decided DOGSO was not met.
– VAR will only overturn the on‑field call if the original decision was a clear and obvious error; marginal or interpretative decisions typically stand.
Counterarguments
– Observers who thought it should have been a red will point to the degree of contact and the timing — if Kepa left his line and blocked Doku with his hands or body in a way that stopped a clear run on goal, that fits the classic DOGSO red.
– If Doku was one‑on‑one with the keeper or in a position where a goal was highly likely without the intervention, enforcement of the laws would normally demand a sending‑off.
Verdict
This was a borderline incident. Under the current laws and IFAB guidance, a red is required only when the goalkeeper did not make a genuine attempt to play the ball or when the foul clearly stopped an obvious goal‑scoring opportunity. If Kepa’s contact came while genuinely trying to reach the ball, and the referee judged the attacker’s chance not to be an ‘obvious’ one, the decision to withhold a red is defensible. Conversely, if the intervention clearly prevented a near‑certain goal, a red could equally have been justified.
Bottom line
The call sits in the gray area referees are frequently asked to interpret. From a rules perspective the on‑field decision to avoid a red can be supported if the keeper genuinely played the ball or if the DOGSO criteria weren’t met; supporters of Doku/City can reasonably feel aggrieved if they judge the attacker was denied a clear chance. Ultimately this is the sort of marginal incident where VAR will only act if the referee’s judgment was plainly wrong, which is why debate will continue among fans and pundits.