RefSix

DOGSO done right

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#2
Yep, that is how you do it, take your pick from DOGSO or SFP there.

I got away with a few of those back in the days, a by product of my team insisting on playing a half way line offside trap with no assistants and me being the only defender with any pace. God knows how many times I'd have been sent off if that team was playing today …!
 
#3
Late in the game, sometimes it's worth taking a red card for the team. Completely unfair on the team who was through on goal, though. This is why I'd like to see a law change where DOGSO is always a penalty kick even if the offense occurs outside of the penalty area.
 
Last edited:

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
#4
I had one of these 9 v 11 at kick off.. it was for the 11, they accused me of trying to even things up! It wasn’t, it was stone cold bye bye! 👋👋
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#5
Cheating. Should be banned for 10 games. Maybe all DOGSOs should be a PK
This behaviour is uncommon at grass roots, unless the perpetrator thinks he can fight all comers
 

Justylove

RefChat Addict
#8
Late in the game, sometimes it's worth taking a red card for the team. Completely unfair on the team who was through on goal. This is why I'd like to see a law change where DOGSO is always a penalty kick even if the offense occurs outside of the penalty area.

You'd have to distinguish between an attempt to play the ball or no attempt to play the ball for offences outside the box. Maybe if no attempt to play the ball, then you go PK, and red card, but then you're going to get controversy because it's open to interpretation.

Part of the problem we are having with elements like handball is that there are 1 or 2 incidents that create a sh*tstorm and we end up with a change to the law that whilst well intentioned creates a whole new set of problems.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#10
Not exactly done right. He shows the card, turns and walks away. There is absolutely every chance of of a flashpoint happening there. He should have been standing next to the offender walking him off or at least pointing away any approaching Atletico players.

I think taking one for the team is part of the game but for the competition to give him MVP for that tackle which saved the game was really poor taste and not in the spirit of the game.
 
Last edited:

Nij

Well-Known Member
#12
You'd have to distinguish between an attempt to play the ball or no attempt to play the ball for offences outside the box. Maybe if no attempt to play the ball, then you go PK, and red card, but then you're going to get controversy because it's open to interpretation.

Part of the problem we are having with elements like handball is that there are 1 or 2 incidents that create a sh*tstorm and we end up with a change to the law that whilst well intentioned creates a whole new set of problems.
At the moment, any DOGSO outside the box must be red, while DOGSO inside the box can be yellow if 1. it was an attempt to play the ball, and 2. a PK is awarded. This is a corner case of a corner case, and may be easily forgotten by less experienced officials (or those of much experience with previous LOTG editions who haven't updated yet).

Proposing a PK for any DOGSO would remove the difference in criteria here. Then the only decisions are
  • was it DOGSO? If yes, give automatic PK. If not, give dependent FK.
  • was it an attempt to play ball? If yes, caution. If not, dismiss.
The relevant text of law then becomes
12.3 Where a player commits an offence against an opponent w̶i̶t̶h̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶p̶e̶n̶a̶l̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶a̶ which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.
14.i A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area, or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13, or commits an offence against an opponent which denies an opponent a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#14
At the moment, any DOGSO outside the box must be red, while DOGSO inside the box can be yellow if 1. it was an attempt to play the ball, and 2. a PK is awarded. This is a corner case of a corner case, and may be easily forgotten by less experienced officials (or those of much experience with previous LOTG editions who haven't updated yet).

Proposing a PK for any DOGSO would remove the difference in criteria here. Then the only decisions are
  • was it DOGSO? If yes, give automatic PK. If not, give dependent FK.
  • was it an attempt to play ball? If yes, caution. If not, dismiss.
The relevant text of law then becomes
While you have removed one complexity out of DOGSO, you have added one complexity to the PK (the exception when an offence outside the PA means a PK). For me the second complexity is not worth removal of the first one.

Although I can see why for fairness we want to give a PK for every DOGSO. If that was the case then we would want to also introduce the concept of penalty goals when an obvious goal (not just opportunity) is denied. I think we have had too many fundamental changes in the last few years already. For the next 10 years or so, I'd just like to fix what those (ball hitting the ref, non deliberate handballs...) or the things they broke rather than change anything fundamental to introduce more broken laws.

Sometimes I think IFAB change things to only justify their existence and their budget.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#15
Personally I love seeing the professional foul. It's a clean method of playing dirty if that even makes sense?
Yep
Diving = You cheat, you hide it, you expect the opponents to be punished for it
Professional foul = You cheat, you make it obvious, you expect to be punished for it
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#16
Not exactly done right. He shows the card, turns and walks away. There is absolutely every chance of of a flashpoint happening there. He should have been standing next to the offender walking him off or at least pointing away any approaching Atletico players.
I think it's poor refereeing. He thinks the job is done after showing the red, in reality he then has to show 3 preventable cautions because he wasn't aware of what was to come. Would the Atleti players have bombarded the Real player had the referee stood between them with his arms out? Maybe, but probably not.
 
#17
At first I thought the comments were harsh but the ref, as pointed out, turns away from the action, then turns away again to start approaching players...

Trying to work out why? It seems so unusual. It’s like he realises his mistake in not intercepting the players, tries to cover by being proactive with the cards... but it’s a dog’s dinner.

On one hand these players are the best serial whingers in the world but on the other... oops
 

Justylove

RefChat Addict
#19
I think it's poor refereeing. He thinks the job is done after showing the red, in reality he then has to show 3 preventable cautions because he wasn't aware of what was to come. Would the Atleti players have bombarded the Real player had the referee stood between them with his arms out? Maybe, but probably not.
To clarify, I was talking about the foul, not the refereeing...
 
Top