DOGSO after striker has got shot away?

[Dino Ref]

Happened in a junior game today where a striker is through on goal. Defender kicks striker but striker stays on feet and gets the shot away.

Striker was off balance when he took the shot so I pull it back for a penalty instantly before anyone can say an advantage has been played.

My question is if this happened in an adult game would it be a DOGSO as the striker has actually gotten the shot off, hence can't deny a goal scoring opportunity?

 

[Kent Ref]

Was the tackle an attempt to play the ball or a blatant foul?

If no attempt to play the ball did you red card?

 

[Redster]

Interesting...
How much does a foul have to adversely affect and OGSO in order to 'deny' it?

 

[socal lurker]

I think if you don’t apply advantage, then you’ve determined that it is DOGSO.

 

[Redster]

I think if you don’t apply advantage, then you’ve determined that it is DOGSO.

I'm not sure that's necessarily right, because the advantage decision is whether the penalty was a better opportunity than the shot. Not all OGSO are better opportunities than penalties.

That question, then, doesn't always answer whether 'D' has occurred

 

[socal lurker]

While I understand the linguistic argument you are making, I don’t think it was intended by IFAB.

The foul denied the OGSO he would have had but for the foul; the fact he had a different scoring opportunity, which was less of an OGSO than what he had before the foul, doesn’t free the defender from the send off.

 

[Russell Jones]

I'm not sure that's necessarily right, because the advantage decision is whether the penalty was a better opportunity than the shot. Not all OGSO are better opportunities than penalties.

That question, then, doesn't always answer whether 'D' has occurred

As soon as you decide advantage has NOT actually accrued then you simply go back to the original decision ... which in this case sounds like a penalty plus DOGSO YC/RC depending on whether the 'kick' was an attempt to play the ball.

 

[one]

You have a few seconds to decide to play advantage. If you have not played advantage, you can bring play back. Sounds like you waited a little bit (few seconds) to see what happens and fair enough because striker had his shot off-balance, you gave the foul. Well within your rights.

But.... I would not recommend doing this in the penalty area. It can cause serious problems for your match control. Unless, after a foul, the ball is rolling into the net or it's about to be kicked into an empty net, blow the whistle straight away. Attackers are happy because they have very good chance of scoring off a pen. Defenders can't complain about two bites at the cherry.

 

[Redster]

While I understand the linguistic argument you are making, I don’t think it was intended by IFAB.

The foul denied the OGSO he would have had but for the foul; the fact he had a different scoring opportunity, which was less of an OGSO than what he had before the foul, doesn’t free the defender from the send off.

But of course, as @one has pointed out in another thread, we have different language in SPA where interfering with - as distinct from stopping - a promising attack remains USB.

I do take your point though. I'm not sure I would do things differently from you in a match

 

[socal lurker]

You have a few seconds to decide to play advantage. If you have not played advantage, you can bring play back. Sounds like you waited a little bit (few seconds) to see what happens and fair enough because striker had his shot off-balance, you gave the foul. Well within your rights.

But.... I would not recommend doing this in the penalty area. It can cause serious problems for your match control. Unless, after a foul, the ball is rolling into the net or it's about to be kicked into an empty net, blow the whistle straight away. Attackers are happy because they have very good chance of scoring off a pen. Defenders can't complain about two bites at the cherry.

Excellent advise. USSF used to teach that the only advantage in the PA was a goal. Period. Many of us thought that interpretation was technically wrong. But in practical terms, it is pretty close to accurate. I think the USSF guidance came from frustration with “advantage” calls in the PA where the opportunity was no where near better than a PK.