GK DOGSO RC

First line yesterday, first middle of the season today. Today's was national league elite 14 year olds. At 3-0 up red got a ball over the top breakaway, one on one with the GK straight down the middle. Striker knocked it round the keeper, who came in legs splayed, off the ground, wiped out the attacker in the box just behind the pen spot. Clear DOGSO. Luckily I had kept up, ran across the line of the break and had an angle. I thought the keeper had no chance of getting the ball, and there was no genuine attempt to play the ball - the ball went passed him maybe 2 yards away... not playing distance... red card. Only card of the game. Away manager gutted after driving across the country. Also arguing that he had been a ref and claimed I was wrong in law and this was double punishment and should have been a YC. I explained... but... anyway... Went on to lose 7-0.

ARs were great. I was not the sharpest with the offsides behind me, had to rely on their shouts three times. 2 goals disallowed for offside. AR1 also agreed with me on the RC, which was reassuring.

Though... I'd love to see the challenge on video (there is none AFAIK). It was a classic GK "making himself big" (for a 14 year old)... legs straight, out, studs showing... thinking more and more there were as many as 4 possible interpretations: VC, SFP, DOGSO YC, DOGSO RC.

And maybe this is my question: is it a bit odd in the LotG that there is this difference between playing and challenging for the ball in the LotG...?

..."an attempt to play the ball", "no possibility to play the ball"... from the DOGSO wording
..."not challenging for the ball" in the VC wording

Why is challenge for the ball not used on the DOGSO wording... does challenging for the ball mean the ball doesn't have to be within playing distance - so, further away - but possibility to play the ball means closer than that... or...?

santa sangria said:

And maybe this is my question: is it a bit odd in the LotG that there is this difference between playing and challenging for the ball in the LotG...?

..."an attempt to play the ball", "no possibility to play the ball"... from the DOGSO wording
..."not challenging for the ball" in the VC wording

Click to expand...

I may be wrong, so bear with me...

But I think the answer lies in the glossary.

There, a definition for 'challenge' isn't available except indirectly via the definition for Tackle: "A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)"

So Violent conduct is an offence committed when not challenging - i.e. tackling, heading, for the ball. So a punch, or a kick, or a headbutt are clearly not challenges.


Playing the ball is defined though:

Played: "Action by a player which makes contact with the ball"

Playing distance: "Distance to the ball which allows a player to touch the ball by extending the foot/leg or jumping or, for goalkeepers, jumping with arms extended. Distance depends on the physical size of the player."

From that I infer that the DOSGO criteria is meant to consider if the player is making a challenge that is an attempt to play the ball, and not just a cynical challenge that has utterly no hope (i.e. just a clean swipe at the legs from behind - no chance of the ball being played.) But I also think the 'played' terminology allows a bit more leeway, so if a player ends up aiming a kick to the ball but the striker takes it beyond him, that wasn't a challenge, but an attempt to 'play' the ball and needs to be considered?

Erm, that just sounds finicky doesn't it? Maybe I'm over-thinking on this one.

I think your reasoning is sound. If you thought he went to take out the player knowing he couldn't get the ball, then that's a red.

I'd argue, though, that just because the ball has passed by a couple of yards that I don't know if that means it wasn't necessarily a genuine attempt on the ball...just means it was maybe genuine, but late. And if it's a 'making himself big' and going down and the attacker caught him going over him....hmm.......

CapnBloodbeard said:

I think your reasoning is sound. If you thought he went to take out the player knowing he couldn't get the ball, then that's a red.

I'd argue, though, that just because the ball has passed by a couple of yards that I don't know if that means it wasn't necessarily a genuine attempt on the ball...just means it was maybe genuine, but late. And if it's a 'making himself big' and going down and the attacker caught him going over him....hmm.......

Click to expand...

Exactly. In this case I felt the GK only had eyes for the player... but, as said, it's arguable - thank heavens for the "in the opinion of"...
At least the "no possibility to play the ball" wording helps here.

I think what I had was a reckless challenge that was not a genuine attempt to play the ball, without the ball in playing distance, and a denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Am I allowed this! by the wording of the laws or is it self-contradictory?

I think your reasoning is sound. I think that's exactly what the RC is for!

I have had 2 similar situations in the last few weeks, goalkeepers "wiping out" the striker, me going red and pen, and a sideline and whole team insisting I have it wrong. The first game, was a cup tie, at 2-2 with 15 to go, a tough game, but, not a single bit of bother until that red. To the team that lost the gk (and indeed 3-2 after the pen), everything in the last 15 was against them and then of course you get blamed for the defeat.
The coach did try to have a polite word long after the game, but nothing convinced him that I was correct.
I know of at least 2 senior games this weekend where offside restart was given in the players own half and it caused uproar both times.
Its not your/our fault that we are versed in the updated laws and most folk either are not, or are ignorant to it !!

If it's DOGSO with a PK and the foul is a trip, then you should be starting with yellow and seeing if there is any reason to go red. If the ball is even close to the GK, then you should be going yellow IMO. But I didn't see the situation you are talking about.