DOGSO in the penalty area
- Thread starter Kent Ref
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The change was basically an effort to make only cynical fouls in the PA eligible for being send offs. The core of DOGSO, conceptually, was to stop cynical fouls, but became also a punishment for merely careless, good faith offenses if they stopped an OGSO. The change was to somewhat balance that, as a PK remains an OGSO, but they still want cynical fouls out of the game.
for tripping/tackling fouls, the default is going to be yellow--but becomes red if the R determines there was not a legitimate play on the ball (in othere words, the ref finds it a cynical foul).
Since holding, pushing, pulling aren't a part of a play on the ball, they are always reds--because they are viewed as cynical.
If a player both holds and trips, it should be a send off, as the more serious offense should be punished.
for tripping/tackling fouls, the default is going to be yellow--but becomes red if the R determines there was not a legitimate play on the ball (in othere words, the ref finds it a cynical foul).
Since holding, pushing, pulling aren't a part of a play on the ball, they are always reds--because they are viewed as cynical.
If a player both holds and trips, it should be a send off, as the more serious offense should be punished.
Thank you for your replies.
I am now confused because as a ref if you play advantage you cannot caution for non-DOGSO or breaking up a SPA because the chance has not been lost.
How come when a penalty is awarded (another chance to score) in a DOGSO the red still stands for a non-genuine attempt to get the ball? A complete contradiction for me.
I am now confused because as a ref if you play advantage you cannot caution for non-DOGSO or breaking up a SPA because the chance has not been lost.
How come when a penalty is awarded (another chance to score) in a DOGSO the red still stands for a non-genuine attempt to get the ball? A complete contradiction for me.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Having read your second post several times, I am still not sure it's logical.
If the referee plays an advantage on a DOGSO or SPA, the attacking team are still in a position to continue with their attack and possibly score. The offence in question does not stop a promising attack, which is what a caution would be for, or does not deny a goal-scoring opportunity so a red card would be wrong.
In awarding a penalty kick, the referee is satisfied there is no advantage to be played, the offender has committed a red or yellow card offence (as described by earlier posts) and is dealt with accordingly.
Your second post seemed to be comparing apples with oranges.
If the referee plays an advantage on a DOGSO or SPA, the attacking team are still in a position to continue with their attack and possibly score. The offence in question does not stop a promising attack, which is what a caution would be for, or does not deny a goal-scoring opportunity so a red card would be wrong.
In awarding a penalty kick, the referee is satisfied there is no advantage to be played, the offender has committed a red or yellow card offence (as described by earlier posts) and is dealt with accordingly.
Your second post seemed to be comparing apples with oranges.
My point is that if you allow a quick free kick or play advantage outside the area you now do not caution (unless tackle is reckless) as said SPA has not been denied.
So based on that logic if you award a penalty the chance to score has been given, so why not downgrade to yellow? Why a downgrade outside the area but not in it?
So based on that logic if you award a penalty the chance to score has been given, so why not downgrade to yellow? Why a downgrade outside the area but not in it?
one
RefChat Addict
The law says "...the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; "
My question, what do I do if I determine it was an attempt to play the ball but it was not "genuine" or "legitimate"?
one
RefChat Addict
Firstly for DOGSO the downgrade only applies to inside the penalty area. Secondly @socal lurker explained this well, the logic is, if you don't attempt to play the ball, then you don't deserve a downgrade. It stops cynical fouls which are not part of football.
As far as inconsistency you refer to, if a SPA situation, and the defender fouls while not attempting to play the ball, if you play advantage, then you lose the option of cautioning for SPA only. But you still have the option of cautioning for other reasons. For example if it is a clear shirt pull, or a prolonged hold, I would still caution for USB. You can put it under "lack of respect for the game".
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
Avoided the question though
. But think you get the point. If you put that in a send off report the 'lawyers' will have field day with it. The law is simple, why complicate it by adding additional unnecessary words?socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Avoided the question though
I think you’re making much out of nothing. The point of my “legitimate” is that it has to actually be an attempt to play the ball. We’re generous on the interpretation when it comes to trips and tackles, but it has to actually be one.
Back to the original question:
My point is that if you allow a quick free kick or play advantage outside the area you now do not caution (unless tackle is reckless) as said SPA has not been denied.
So based on that logic if you award a penalty the chance to score has been restored, so why not downgrade to yellow? Why a downgrade for above but not for DOGSO in the PA?
My point is that if you allow a quick free kick or play advantage outside the area you now do not caution (unless tackle is reckless) as said SPA has not been denied.
So based on that logic if you award a penalty the chance to score has been restored, so why not downgrade to yellow? Why a downgrade for above but not for DOGSO in the PA?
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I will try once more to answer this - outside the area a free kick and red becomes a penalty and red when the offence is inside. The advantage use is a red herring.
one
RefChat Addict
I fixed that. SPA and reckless tackle are not the only two cautionable offences. Hope my original response makes better sense now.
Think of it this way, you restored the chance so that is a yellow, but it is also another yellow because the offence was unsporting (it was not a challenge for the ball ), that makes it a send off (two yellows). Now if it was a challenge for the ball, then only just the one yellow.
Last edited:
The easiest way to put it it, considering all are DOGSO:
In the box attempt for ball = pen + yc. The OGSO has not been denied as a penalty is awarded and the player has tried to legitimately play for the ball, 'double jeopardy' unfair.
In the box no attempt for the ball = PK + RC. The offender should not be let off for a cynical attempt at trying to prevent and OGSO.
Outside box attempt/no attempt = DFK and RC. The OGSO is not restored as a FK is not an OGSO by loth definition.
For SPA
In box, attempt for ball = PK. The promising attack has not been stopped as it is in fact upgraded to an OGSO already.
In box, no attempt = PK and YC, as above a player not making an attempt for the ball should not be exempt from sanction when he is acting outside the lotg
Outside box = DFK and YC again promising attack is denied and a less promising attack in the form of DFK.
With respect of the advantage no YC situation, you should only really play advantage if the attacking situation is still there. The spirit of the above laws still apply for me, so it its not an attempt for the ball then I would still YC under reckless. So far have had 2 advantages from SPA and both ticked the reckless box for me were still cautioned. I think, wrongly now I have thought about it, I have been cautioning for SPA by mistake where I should have been cautioning reckless tackles as the more serious offence. I think most advantages from SPA are likely to be on or across the reckless border anyway and only a few will get away without one with the new law change. In hindsight, I am yet to see the game or any player benefit from the new law.
In the box attempt for ball = pen + yc. The OGSO has not been denied as a penalty is awarded and the player has tried to legitimately play for the ball, 'double jeopardy' unfair.
In the box no attempt for the ball = PK + RC. The offender should not be let off for a cynical attempt at trying to prevent and OGSO.
Outside box attempt/no attempt = DFK and RC. The OGSO is not restored as a FK is not an OGSO by loth definition.
For SPA
In box, attempt for ball = PK. The promising attack has not been stopped as it is in fact upgraded to an OGSO already.
In box, no attempt = PK and YC, as above a player not making an attempt for the ball should not be exempt from sanction when he is acting outside the lotg
Outside box = DFK and YC again promising attack is denied and a less promising attack in the form of DFK.
With respect of the advantage no YC situation, you should only really play advantage if the attacking situation is still there. The spirit of the above laws still apply for me, so it its not an attempt for the ball then I would still YC under reckless. So far have had 2 advantages from SPA and both ticked the reckless box for me were still cautioned. I think, wrongly now I have thought about it, I have been cautioning for SPA by mistake where I should have been cautioning reckless tackles as the more serious offence. I think most advantages from SPA are likely to be on or across the reckless border anyway and only a few will get away without one with the new law change. In hindsight, I am yet to see the game or any player benefit from the new law.
I went to a referee training event and we were told if you allow a quick free kick or play advantage (For SPA) the yellow card goes unless the tackle was reckless. Is this a red herring or fact?
Have you read the law changes? If you have then you would know the answer to that question..
James:
I know this is LOTG and totally agree: (as you said)
In the box no attempt for the ball = PK + RC. The offender should not be let off for a cynical attempt at trying to prevent and OGSO.
BUT:
If the restoration of a SPA is no card (bar reckless or a n other) because SPA is restored
Why is DOGSO (not genuine attempt) not being downgraded to yellow and a DOGSO (genuine attempt) is being downgraded to no card (bar reckless or a n other) like a SPA as the penalty is the OGSO restored?
I totally agree with the current laws on this but don't understand why FIFA have not downgraded BOTH situations.
Thanks.
I'm quoting from training i had last week. Have i been told wrongly is what i am asking.