DOGSO and goal Scored
- Thread starter one
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think you should give an actual scenario
I presume we're talking about essentially the same incident, but inside and outside the PA?
I think the OP is right - yellow in both situations. But I do agree that it feels a little inconsistent, there are a few aspects of the new DOGSO law that still don't feel fully thought out.
That's a very good point - if a goal is scored, we're not actually talking about the two types of DOGSO any more, as they require "Denying". And therefore again you're right, SPA caution is appropriate regardless of position on the field.
Stopping a promising attack.
Exactly my thoughts - if a goal is scored then DOGSO doesn't come into it.
As long as the whistle isn't blown before the goal is "scored". The opposite of which is what happened at a game I watched Saturday afternoon. A busy box, and a DOGSO-H just off the goal line. The referee (that I thought had an excellent game throughout) immediately blew, followed a split second later by the ball going in to the back of the net. Red card and penalty, that was scored. Correct decision, but the grief he got initially from both sides - particularly supporters stood near me - along the lines of why has he not given the goal, how can that be a red card if they've scored etc... Great confidence in the decision making.
Unless it's within the penalty area, goal is scored (before whistle blows), and the referee deemed it a genuine attempt to play the ball.
In which case, good goal, no card.
And I guess that no one in the offended team (players of sidelines) claimed for hand ball?
Unless it's within the penalty area, goal is scored (before whistle blows), and the referee deemed it a genuine attempt to play the ball.
In which case, good goal, no card.
If you're referring to the law change this year downgrading the caution to nothing, then it can't apply here. One condition of that is that "the referee awards a penalty kick", which hasn't happened in this scenario.
P.s. I personally think your answer should be correct, but it's not what law says.
Those close to the offending player did, and a handful of spectators. But as they were claiming for it the whistle went and a split second later the "goal" was scored. A few grumbles, but when they realised there was a red card and penalty they quickly calmed down. The team that lost a player had a bit of a moan, but credit to the player dismissed, he left the field quickly and calmly.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I'm sorry but I feel the question is poorly phrased and therefore misleading. I assume the question has something to do with the way different DOGSO offences are treated depending on the location and nature of the offence.
However, if a goal is scored then (as others have said) there is no DOGSO offence to consider. What you're left with as far as I can tell are just plain fouls, either inside or outside the area and involving either an attempt to play the ball or not, after which the team that was offended against, scores a goal. So for me, you just take the offences on their merits. The fact that if a goal had not been scored, a different set of criteria would have applied, becomes irrelevant.
one
RefChat Addict
The OP is not asking if and what is a DOGSO and when is it a yellow card or red card. You can come up with your own scenarios for each case. Its about an inconsistency of when advantage is played after the offence (under your own scenarios) and a goal is scored.
It was correctly mentioned above that once the goal is scored then it can't be a DOGSO because a goal is not denied. What is incorrect above is that a YC should be given for SAP. YC can't be be given for SPA because the promising attack was not stopped. Attempting to SPA is not and has never been a YC. We can't just make it up. If a goal is scored after any (YC or RC) DOGSO offence a YC must be given according to this clause:
"Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour."
This clause was around before the 16-17 DOGSO changes and remained the same after it. Not adjusting this clause accordingly has lead to an inconstancy.
Hope this makes it clearer.
It was correctly mentioned above that once the goal is scored then it can't be a DOGSO because a goal is not denied. What is incorrect above is that a YC should be given for SAP. YC can't be be given for SPA because the promising attack was not stopped. Attempting to SPA is not and has never been a YC. We can't just make it up. If a goal is scored after any (YC or RC) DOGSO offence a YC must be given according to this clause:
"Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour."
This clause was around before the 16-17 DOGSO changes and remained the same after it. Not adjusting this clause accordingly has lead to an inconstancy.
- A red card DOGSO offence is down graded to a yellow card if a goal is scored.
- A Yellow card DOSO offence is still a yellow card even if a goal is scored.
Hope this makes it clearer.
Agree with most apart from the attempted spa.
• "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"
This is listed as a cautionable offence.
Not having the english language debate again but attempting to spa is interfering with one in my book.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It makes it a little clearer what you're thinking but I think it also makes it appear to me that you're inventing a scenario that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "a yellow card DOGSO offence [where] a goal is scored." There can only be a yellow card DOGSO offence if the referee awards a penalty (for a genuine attempt to play the ball). In your scenario no penalty is awarded - the advantage is played and a goal is scored so it never was a "yellow card DOGSO offence."
It's an offence which could under other circumstances have been a yellow card DOGSO offence, but only if a goal had not been scored and the referee had awarded a penalty. Since neither of those things happened, I don't think you can start analysing the situation as if they had.
However there is the scenario (which @James Long alluded to above) where a promising attack is stopped or interfered with and a penalty is awarded, where the law now says that the player is not cautioned and this, according to the IFAB, is the downgrading of a yellow card that maintains the consistency with the downgrading of a red card for DOGSO, as follows:
one
RefChat Addict
@Peter Grove I am not sure if I understand you entirely. We may be talking the same thing with different semantics. I don't see any point having a semantics debate or as @James Long put it the English language debate.
May I ask you this question. A defender challenges an opponent in an OGSO in the defender's PA. The challenge was a genuine attempt to play the ball but carelessly fouls the opponent. Referee plays advantage a goal is scored. Should the defender be sanctioned according the LOTG as it stands now?
May I ask you this question. A defender challenges an opponent in an OGSO in the defender's PA. The challenge was a genuine attempt to play the ball but carelessly fouls the opponent. Referee plays advantage a goal is scored. Should the defender be sanctioned according the LOTG as it stands now?