Uhhh, no, it doesn't depend only on the location, but if you're talking about a goal scoring opportunity then it absolutely matters. If you spit at someone, are guilty of violent conduct or use offensive slurs, then a straight red doesn't depend on location. The other types of reds (goal scoring opportunity) absolutely do depend on location because of the definition of goal scoring opportunity. FIFA even includes it in several guidelines. I don't recall the last time I saw a DOGSO foul given, at mid-field, when it was a last man back situation. IIRC US soccer even had the absolute, explicit requirement of being the last man back for a long while. That obviously isn't relevant to the ruling here since it's not US soccer, but it goes to show the how those fouls are generally viewed. If that foul was going to be a red, it would have been because of the violence of it, not because of the goal scoring opportunity. If you want to argue it was violent enough for a straight red, sure I can understand that. I don't agree, but I don't think it's insane to call it like that. However you can't really expect that to be called a DOGSO in the way that it's been commonly interpreted and called.