So when I think of DOGSO, I think of break aways with the attacker going forward at full speed and the 2nd to last defender fouling from the side or behind also running at pretty much full speed....something like that. However, yesterday, I had a situation where the attacking center forward receive the ball, turned, and had a 1v1 against a squared up defender right out side the box say in the penalty arc area. Attacker tried to beat defender. Block tackle missed and and got the shin. Attacker tripped and fell. Foul. There were no other defenders between this defender and the GK. Distance was about 20 yards. I have no reason to believe the attacker wouldn't continue to control the ball. I'm sure there were other defenders tracking back but I don't really remember where they were. In my gut, this in not DOGSO because of the speed of play was not there for me. However, I heard from the sidelines "Last Defender, Ref! Last Defender!" Could is be SPA? Any thoughts you can share on this.
DOGSO
- Thread starter NOVARef
- Start date
There are 4 considerations for DOGSO:
Distance to goal, general direction of play, number of defenders and control or likelihood to regain control.
Speed of play is irrelevant as it is not listed as a consideration.
From what you have written to me you had ticked all of the requisite criteria for DOGSO.
Distance to goal, general direction of play, number of defenders and control or likelihood to regain control.
Speed of play is irrelevant as it is not listed as a consideration.
From what you have written to me you had ticked all of the requisite criteria for DOGSO.
Thank you on such a quick response. I realize speed of play isn't a factor in the Laws specifically, but after thinking about it...I think the speed of the play is correlated with the distance between the offence and the goal. So if an attacker is on a breakaway and gets dragged down 20 yards from the goal, that's one thing, but when an attacker is squared up doing a dance to beat a defender 1v1 and gets fouled...that distance to consider is much different. Would you agree?
Not really.
With DOGSO we are coached to look at it as if the player was not there. Bearing in mind the only way to stop the player advancing towards goal was to foul him, I'd argue speed is not a factor.
What you describe is that a player was about to go past a defender, and once he was past he had an open goal (but for GK) - how fast he is travelling has no impact on that picture
one
RefChat Addict
IFAB has been trying to make things prescriptive in recent times. While that may create better consistency, it takes away the referee's 'gut feel' and intuitiveness. DOGSO is about one thing, it's the primary thing to think about - it's the criteria - obvious goal scoring opportunity*. In OP you are complicating things by adding stuff that may not be required. Second last defender, speed, 20 yards... Yes there are some considerations but think about the primary criteria first using your gut feel and intuition as a referee. If you don't have an answer then go to the considerations. If the attacker was not fouled did he have an obvious goal scoring opportunity? (was he highly likely to score?) To me sound like he did but I wasnt there and you were.
* a couple of other given criteria already proven, attacker moving towards goal and offence punishable by fee kick.
* a couple of other given criteria already proven, attacker moving towards goal and offence punishable by fee kick.
So I was watching the highlights of the Hartlepool v Northhampton Town match from another thread about the legitimacy of the corner kick at 1:30. If you watch at 0:59. This is a similar situation as I was talking about in my original post. So the forward received the ball. The centerback got in between the forward and the goal. If the forward would have been fouled on his first attacking move to beat the defender before the other defender arrived or let's take the other defender away for this discussion, that would be DOGSO?
The reason IFAB has been doing this is because every single referee's gut appeared to "feel" in widely different ways. So different in fact that it might seem some referees were using the excuse of "intuitiveness" to rewrite the Laws in a manner that appealed to them. So much so that players complained that they never knew just how any Law would be interpreted. Yes, it is more prescriptive now, and we referees only have ourselves to blame.
I could see it being sold, there are a fair few players back though
one
RefChat Addict
I am not sure if you are quoting me out of context but worth a reply. The prescription has never stopped 'those' referees who make it up as they go. You even see it with some EPL decision under the guise of game management or football expects. I actually worked with a referee last week (allbeit futsal) who gave a IFK for PIADM for a slide tackle which fell the opponent with plenty of contact.
I am not fundamentally against added criteria or considerations. But I am against criteria that go too far (e.g. handball 3 seasons ago which only lasted one season) or considerations that are taken too literally like the ten commandments.
The ball was always moving (when in the corner arc), so just get them to stop p1ssing about and take the CK properly