A&H

LOTG Questions for Championship Goalkeeper

Big Cat said:
IDFK either way. IDFK correct answer to my poser also. Burst ball and maniac pigeon -> dropped ball, not in goal area (6yd)
Click to expand...
Well you have half an answer for my question. Also not a complete answer to you own.
Any sanctions for my question?
 
The Referee Store
one said:
An opponent is about to score a goal. A defender commits an IFK offence denying him that opportunity. Do you know of any sanctions that may apply?
Click to expand...
Particularly WRT your two questions, my interpretation is that these are not DOGSOs because the offence is not committed against an opponent. They are technical offences and IDFKs. There's no specific reason to show a card, but a caution could probably be justified C1 UB
 
Big Cat said:
Particularly WRT your two questions, my interpretation is that these are not DOGSOs because the offence is not committed against an opponent. They are technical offences and IDFKs. There's no specific reason to show a card, but a caution could probably be justified C1 UB
Click to expand...
"denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)."

I don't see anywhere in there saying the offence has to be 'against' and opponent. Neither that it has to be non-technical. the type of free kick (direct or indirect) is not specified either. Non-technical offences can't be DOGSO is a myth running at a higher (assessor) level. I don't know where it originated from.
 
one said:
"denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)."

I don't see anywhere in there saying the offence has to be 'against' and opponent. Neither that it has to be non-technical. the type of free kick (direct or indirect) is not specified either. Non-technical offences can't be DOGSO is a myth running at a higher (assessor) level. I don't know where it originated from.
Click to expand...
This is what i mean when i post derisory comments about how badly the book is written. Further down page 103, DOGSO is clarified more specifically, in which 'commits an offence against an opponent' is stated. Even allowing for 'punishing the more serious offence', awarding a direct free kick for this technical offence is a contradiction of Law 13. Maybe we should just accept that these scenarios are so rare, that they're not worth the headache :confused:
 
Big Cat said:
This is what i mean when i post derisory comments about how badly the book is written. Further down page 103, DOGSO is clarified more specifically, in which 'commits an offence against an opponent' is stated. Even allowing for 'punishing the more serious offence', awarding a direct free kick for this technical offence is a contradiction of Law 13. Maybe we should just accept that these scenarios are so rare, that they're not worth the headache :confused:
Click to expand...
The 'against' the opponent criteria is only applicable for a DOGSO yellow card. When its a foul 'against' an opponent and attempting to play the ball and a penalty is awarded. The scenario in my case is neither of those.

Here is a technical offence IFK scenario which was confirmed by David Elleray as a DOGSO red.
https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/open-goal-distraction.10530/#post-101402

So the answer to both parts a. and b. of my question is: Send the goalkeeper off for DOGSO. Award an IFK from the penalty spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top