The Ref Stop

DOGSO (HB) scenario

RefJef

RefJef

RefChat Addict
Ok, so this didn’t happen in my game today, but had the striker not lofted the ball over the bar it might have done, and got me thinking....

Keeper way out of position, attacker gathers ball 10 yards outside box and shoots at empty net.

Covering defender has spotted the danger and has positioned himself on the goal line, and catches the ball.

If it all ends here, easy : RC - DOGSO HB, + penalty.

But it doesn’t end there - our defender is swift of thought. Realising he‘s headed for an early bath, and before the you blow the whistle, he turns and throws the ball into the goal.


What do you do?

(I know what I’d do, but interested to hear other thoughts.)
 
The Ref Stop
You apply advantage , allow the goal and caution defender for USB (unsuccessful attempt for DOGSO-H).
 
We have had a discussion on this before , let's say it's 10th minute and the attacking team is leading by two goals already. Is allowing a goal actually advantageous to the attacking team? It's getting a penalty with 75% chance of scoring and playing against 10 men for the remains 80 minutes, vs 100% goal but full team for the rest of the game.

There are differing opinions here but majority attackers would take the goal, and majority neutrals don't want to see a player sent off if there is an option.
 
one said:
We have had a discussion on this before , let's say it's 10th minute and the attacking team is leading by two goals already. Is allowing a goal actually advantageous to the attacking team? It's getting a penalty with 75% chance of scoring and playing against 10 men for the remains 80 minutes, vs 100% goal but full team for the rest of the game.

There are differing opinions here but majority attackers would take the goal, and majority neutrals don't want to see a player sent off if there is an option.
Click to expand...
Yes we have, but there is no justification in law for sending off for dogso...
 
one said:
We have had a discussion on this before , let's say it's 10th minute and the attacking team is leading by two goals already. Is allowing a goal actually advantageous to the attacking team? It's getting a penalty with 75% chance of scoring and playing against 10 men for the remains 80 minutes, vs 100% goal but full team for the rest of the game.

There are differing opinions here but majority attackers would take the goal, and majority neutrals don't want to see a player sent off if there is an option.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I forgot about the, 'how long is left' consideration. That said, this is irrelevant from the referee's perspective. Dismissals are generally unwanted, so as you said, 'playing an advantage for an unsuccessful DOGSO-H'... sends everyone home happy '
 
Mintyref said:
Yes we have, but there is no justification in law for sending off for dogso...
Click to expand...
Of course there is if you give a penalty for handball (not playing advantage and not allowing the goal)
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
Yeh, I forgot about the, 'how long is left' consideration. That said, this is irrelevant from the referee's perspective. Dismissals are generally unwanted, so as you said, 'playing an advantage for an unsuccessful DOGSO-H'... sends everyone home happy '
Click to expand...
Here is twist. The defender is already on a caution. What do you do? :)
 
one said:
Of course there is if you give a penalty for handball (not playing advantage and not allowing the goal)
Click to expand...
If as described you have not stopped play, before the act of throwing the ball in the goal you remove that option......
 
Don't need to over complicate this.

If you stop the game to award the penalty prior to him throwing the ball over the line and into the goal, then it's a DOGSO Red.

If he throws the ball over the line into the goal before you blow, you award the goal and caution the player as stated above.

Your consideration as to the player being already on a yellow card is irrelevant. This circumstance is binary in law and not one that can be managed in any other way. There is zero "spirit of the game" justification for doing anything other than the two options above. The player has made a conscious decision to do this and has to face the consequences of their actions.
 
Big Cat said:
Yeh, I forgot about the, 'how long is left' consideration. That said, this is irrelevant from the referee's perspective. Dismissals are generally unwanted, so as you said, 'playing an advantage for an unsuccessful DOGSO-H'... sends everyone home happy '
Click to expand...
This is actually covered in the VAR protocol. It states as follows:
What about a potential DOGSO in the penalty area in the first minute of the game where a goal is ultimately scored?
[...] the goal stands. The referee makes decisions as if there was no VAR and teams can not choose between a penalty kick and DOGSO or a goal, even if the former is a better strategic option. If the reviewed penalty offence was a DOGSO sending-off (RC), playing advantage means that the offending player receives a YC.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grove said:
This is actually covered in the VAR protocol. It states as follows:
Click to expand...
Between this edge case and the famous "simultaneous offences", there are a few cases where we're expected to decide which of the possible outcomes is harsher on the offending team. Either the lawmakers think there's an obvious hierarchy, or they expect referees to make a context-based decision.

The fact that an obvious hierarchy is implied in the VAR protocol does suggest they've gone with option 1. In which case, that really needs to be put into law proper rather than hidden away in a bit of the book that 99% of referees will never have need to know about.
 
The flip side is that 99.99% of referees would never need to know about it. And the 0.01% who would have to makes that decision once in their life, either decision is right in law.

I have only had a remotely close scenario once in a futsal game in a end of season dead rubber game with the defending team losing by 6 or 7 goals. The defender instinctively put his hand out on the goal line (or was it over?) To stop a goal. Everyone laughed first but as l moved towards him hand in pocket even the attacking team were saying don't send him off ref. I said I saw it over the line, gave a goal and cautioned him. But the actual OP scenario, never had.
 
one said:
Only when attempting to play the ball. We had a caution (Muller) on UCL final after playing advantage.
Click to expand...

It was nice to see him go back for that, as it was a well deserved caution. It looked like Muller argued at first thinking it was for something else, but when the ref explained, he accepted it.
 
santa sangria said:
I can't find that in the laws...
Click to expand...

They changed it as relating to “Stopping or Interfering with a promising attack”

If a player commits an offence that does this and you play advantage then you no longer can go back and caution.

You can go back and caution if it was reckless however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top