The Ref Stop

Holding / Pulling An Opponent

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

NoFoulsAllowed

NoFoulsAllowed

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
So happens every few matches. A player is through on goal. In clear DOGSO/Promising Attack territory. A player grabs their shirt (or arm around them etc) and tries their best to hinder them as unfairly as possible. But the attacking player fights them off losing a lot of their advantage. They continue on at goal but nothing comes of it.

Instinctively I would always play advantage as that is pretty much expected by all. As blowing the whistle, will lead to a red and a non-ideally placed free-kick.

Would you at the next stop in play caution the defending player in the case of unfairly hindering a DOGSO opportunity as you played advantage.

Guessing with promising attack, since you played advantage, there is no cause to book the defending player for SPA. But would you caution for pulling.
 
The Ref Stop
A good follow up lotg question (@JamesL you are not allowed to answer 😝) do you do anything if after you play advantage for a DOGSO, the defender changes the opponent in a fair way and wins the ball?
 
Last edited:
Think it depends on whether it's still in within your Advantage. If yes: bring it back to the first one and caution the offender. If no: let play continue and caution the defender for the first one when the ball goes out of play, even if it does look very strange.
 
Samuel said:
Think it depends on whether it's still in within your Advantage. If yes: bring it back to the first one and caution the offender. If no: let play continue and caution the defender for the first one when the ball goes out of play, even if it does look very strange.
Click to expand...
Just so I understand, if within your advantage, you're going to bring it back (i.e. advantage not accrued) punish the DOGSO foul, and caution the offender?
 
JamesL said:
Just so I understand, if within your advantage, you're going to bring it back (i.e. advantage not accrued) punish the DOGSO foul, and caution the offender?
Click to expand...
Ok now that it's worded like that you are making me doubt myself. As the LOTG guru what would the expectation be for that?
 
Samuel said:
Ok now that it's worded like that you are making me doubt myself. As the LOTG guru what would the expectation be for that?
Click to expand...
He is not allowed to answer... because he is the lotg guru 🤣

To clarify my question, "after playing advantage" intended to mean advantage is over (challenge is not within advantage timeframe).
 
Samuel said:
Ok now that it's worded like that you are making me doubt myself. As the LOTG guru what would the expectation be for that?
Click to expand...
If you bring play back to the free kick for the foul you are saying the goal scoring opportunity has been denied so the sanction has to match the offence, and so is then dependent on the location of the offence/type of offence.

I'm not actually answering your actual question @one so hope this okay lol
 
  • Love
Reactions: one
one said:
He is not allowed to answer... because he is the lotg guru 🤣

To clarify my question, "after playing advantage" intended to mean advantage is over (challenge is not within advantage timeframe).
Click to expand...
That's a brain teaser!

On the one hand, you've played advantage for the DOGSO so should still come back and caution for USB.

However, the DOGSO never developed (as the advantage was there and not taken, as opposed to never developing, one has to assume the attacker either chose not to shoot or delayed the shot to the point the defender has recovered) because the defender won the ball, so whilst you played advantage for DOGSO, there was no DOGSO which makes it feel like it ended up as SPA.

I genuinely don't know the answer but in my mind it would be a tough sell at grassroots for a YC, so whilst technically my suspicion is the correct answer is YC, I'd equally suspect I'd give no sanction in reality.
 
The Gump said:
so whilst you played advantage for DOGSO, there was no DOGSO
Click to expand...
Really a digression from the question but technically this is not correct.

DOGSO is Denying an OGS "Opportunity". It is acceptable that not all opportunities convert to a goal. So the opportunity could still have been denied (not the goal). Had it been "DOG" then your argument may have held true.

Also keep in mind not all goal scoring opportunities are of the same value. For example an attacker with the ball 40 yards out with only keeper in goal and no other field defenders in the hlaf is an OGSO. Having the keeper out in the other half (empty goal) is still an OGSO but a much better one.
 
Because you determined it was DOGSO but played advantage and the advantage materialized, but then the defender fairly challenged for and won the ball, I believe you would let play continue until the next ball out and then caution the defender for USB (the downgrade for DOGSO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top