DOGSO and goal Scored

[Peter Grove]

For me, this is covered by the section of the law you quoted earlier:

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

Again, I think this is slightly innacurate wording from the IFAB, what they really mean is "when what would have been the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity had a goal not been scored, results in a goal ...." Although that would be a real mouthful and I can understand why they have gone for the "shorthand" version.

Just to reiterate, this for me is not a "yellow card DOGSO" offence as no penalty was given, it's just playing the advantage and then going back to punish the offender (for unsporting behaviour, as mentioned in the law) with DOGSO not being a consideration since a goal was scored.

 

[one]

I agree with your point about incorrect wording (from me or IFAB). If it helps I can go back and change all the “yellow card DOGSO” references to “what would have been an awarding of a penalty kick and issuing of a yellow card for DOGSO”.

So let’s get back to the purpose of the OP. We agree that the LOTG requires the defender to be cautioned for the scenario in my previous post (say scenario A)

Scenario B: A defender carelessly pushes an opponent in an OGSO in the defender's PA with no attempt to play the ball. Referee plays advantage and a goal is scored.

Using the same section of LOTG in scenario B, the defender is required to be cautioned also

And there lies the inconsistency. The LOTG was changed so a genuine attempt at playing the ball in an OGSO situation is a lesser sanction. So if advantage was not played, scenario A would have been Pen+YC, scenario B would have been Pen+RC. But if a goal is scored the sanction is the same no matter if the challenge was a genuine attempt or not. Yes a goal was not denied but the concept/spirit is the same. This inconsistency can be fixed with a simple modification to the referred section.

 

[zarathustra]

I agree with your point about incorrect wording (from me or IFAB). If it helps I can go back and change all the “yellow card DOGSO” references to “what would have been an awarding of a penalty kick and issuing of a yellow card for DOGSO”.

So let’s get back to the purpose of the OP. We agree that the LOTG requires the defender to be cautioned for the scenario in my previous post (say scenario A)

Scenario B: A defender carelessly pushes an opponent in an OGSO in the defender's PA with no attempt to play the ball. Referee plays advantage and a goal is scored.

Using the same section of LOTG in scenario B, the defender is required to be cautioned also

And there lies the inconsistency. The LOTG was changed so a genuine attempt at playing the ball in an OGSO situation is a lesser sanction. So if advantage was not played, scenario A would have been Pen+YC, scenario B would have been Pen+RC. But if a goal is scored the sanction is the same no matter if the challenge was a genuine attempt or not. Yes a goal was not denied but the concept/spirit is the same. This inconsistency can be fixed with a simple modification to the referred section.

There is no inconsistency.

If the defenders push Denys an obvious goal scoring opportunity then it is a red card.

If the offended player scores then he wasn't denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

It looks to me like you are trying to find problems which don't exist