DOGSO in the penalty area
- Thread starter Kent Ref
- Start date
The answer is yes, you have been advised correctly.
The whole point of referring you to the lotg is that the answer is there for you already. As part of your role as a referee there is a responsibility to keep up to date with law. I'm surprised that you only learnt that last week given the law changes were officially in force with effect 30 June and were introduced some time before then.
I asked if i was correct as one of the posters told me "it was a red herring". Some posters on here make you doubt yourself with their superior knowledge.
With regard to my point about downgrading of one but not the other do you have an opinion?
Which one isn't downgraded? If you play advantage following an attempted DOGSO then you downgrade to yellow, and if you play advantage on SPA you downgrade to nothing, providing the offences are not reckless or excessive force in their own right. Same for quick free kicks.
one
RefChat Addict
I think it was more to do with the way you presented it. It took me a while to understand it.
Keep in mind that the spa downgrade only just came about to make it consistent with DOGSO. You asked why not make DOGSO the same as SPA (more or less). Throw in advantage there somewhere and it does get confusing where you are common from.
The inconsistency has more so on the DOGSO and advantage itself without comparing it to SPA. If you apply advantage to DOGSO, regardless of outcome, you give a yellow card. Now that is fine if you were giving a red without the advantage, but what if it was a yellow DOGSO to start with, it is remains a yellow.
There is a downgrade. DOGSO is a red card offence, let's not forget that.
It is downgraded to yellow if a penalty kick is awarded and an attempt for the ball.
It can still be red if the DOGSO challenge was SFP for example.
You can only downgrade 1 step so dogso is a red offence can be downgraded to yellow.
Spa is a yellow card offence can be downgraded to no card under certain circumstances.
If you are referring to the in/out the box then I don't think they need to be exactly coherent as, ultimately, they are two different offences.
I haven’t kept up with this full thread but the photo I’ve attached is from my course back in Jan as a visual aid
Last edited:
I know the difference between DOGSO red or yellow in the PA. This is not new. This came in previously.
In my training i was told the reason for SPA being downgraded if a quick FK or advantage played is the chance being restored. I'm querying why FIFA did not do the same with the DOGSO in the PA in both genuine attempt to play the ball and not trying to play the ball.
A comment was also made that FIFA want less players sent off (the SPA change and misconduct in a penalty shootout). I cannot see why they did not go the whole hog with this scenario too.
I would not agree with this downgrade for this by the way.
Because when there is no attempt to play the ball, that is not part of football. The laws want to promote fair play. So if you deliberately foul an opponent, or foul them without even making an attempt for the ball then why should you not be sent off when you have committed a red card offence? Conversely, if you have made an honest attempt for the ball why should you be punished with a red card when the opportunity still exists?
There are far more worrisome conflicts throughout the book than this one.
DOGSO = Denial of an Obvious GoalScoring Opportunity
SPA = Stopping a Promising Attack
In both cases, if the GSO or PA is not denied/stopped (due to advantage, "implied advantage" or a QFK), then you no longer require a card to be shown for DOGSO/SPA.
There may be other reasons a card is justified based on the nature of the offence or if you just consider it plain unsporting, but that's situational and up to the referee in the moment. Although I would argue it is fairly common for it to still feel "fair" to caution if an offence that would otherwise have been non-ball-challenging DOGSO even if it leads to a goal.
SPA = Stopping a Promising Attack
In both cases, if the GSO or PA is not denied/stopped (due to advantage, "implied advantage" or a QFK), then you no longer require a card to be shown for DOGSO/SPA.
There may be other reasons a card is justified based on the nature of the offence or if you just consider it plain unsporting, but that's situational and up to the referee in the moment. Although I would argue it is fairly common for it to still feel "fair" to caution if an offence that would otherwise have been non-ball-challenging DOGSO even if it leads to a goal.
Your question here compares apples and oranges. The DOGSO you describe implies a stoppage as it would not necessarily require a red or yellow if it fits the conditions I describe above ie. a high goalscoring % chance advantage can be played. And you're then trying to compare it to a SPA where we effectively allow play to continue either via advantage or a QFK. Those are not equivalent situations.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I said that the use of the advantage option was a red herring merely because you were comparing punishments for an offence outside the penalty area with one inside it.
The use of advantage is not the issue.
one
RefChat Addict
Good post but that second paragraph is incorrect for DOGSO. It is not an option (not 'may') here and not up to the referee. It's always a caution (regardles of if it was DOGSO-Y or DOGSO-R)
Refer lines 4 and 5.
Wow, I'm not on form today! Yeah, fair enough - but I think the important detail with respect to the OP on this is that you're no longer cautioning for DOGSO directly. The "denial" still has not occurred, so DOGSO does not apply - what you're cautioning for is doing something generally unsporting that might have otherwise have become DOGSO. And if it's in the PA or not is irrelevant for this.
My view is that 'Double Jeopardy' kills any game dead in its tracks. In the majority of games with a DOGSO-PK, nothing else that happens in the game (except a DOGSO-PK at the other end) has much bearing on the result
As a fan, when a DOGSO-PK occurs, you may as well substitute your seat in the ground for a pew in the nearest boozer
To avoid the contradiction you've queried, IFAB could've been consistent and downgraded all DOGSO-PK's to a caution
However, as I'm not exactly the World's Number 1 fan of cheating, I'm happy for DOGSO-PK's which involve cheating to retain their dismissal status
Same as HB on the line, hauling an attacker down with no attempt to play the ball simply amounts to cheating and I've no doubt defenders would do this more often if a PK and caution was the outcome
You might want to copy and paste this next comment to somewhere you hold special (as it's quite likely I'll never be caught saying it again);
but "I think IFAB have got this Law right!!"
Trying to cut through to the core of this and hopefully simplify it.
No card if a quick free kick is taken - the attacking side have taken an option available to them. They have a potential tactical advantage by catching the defence out. If a quick free kick is taken distance from the ball etc is disregarded also. It is the fact of exercising this option that negates the card.
You cannot have a quick penalty kick, which makes the ‘downgrade’ a moot point. It simply doesn’t exist in law. The goalkeeper must be in a defined position, the taker identified and the others all outside the penalty area with sanctions defined for any form of non-compliance. You can’t waive those requirements as you can for the QFK.
No card if a quick free kick is taken - the attacking side have taken an option available to them. They have a potential tactical advantage by catching the defence out. If a quick free kick is taken distance from the ball etc is disregarded also. It is the fact of exercising this option that negates the card.
You cannot have a quick penalty kick, which makes the ‘downgrade’ a moot point. It simply doesn’t exist in law. The goalkeeper must be in a defined position, the taker identified and the others all outside the penalty area with sanctions defined for any form of non-compliance. You can’t waive those requirements as you can for the QFK.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think it is a bit more simple:
In the PA, we send off cynical fouls and don't send off "honest" fouls.
Outside the PA with advantage or a quick FK is actually similar: if it is just an "honest" SPAA foul, we don't caution; but if it is, ITOOTR, either reckless or otherwise unsporting beyond SPAA, we still caution.
In each scenario, we are giving relief to lesser offenses, but not more serious ones.
The parallels are not exact, but the underlying concept is very similar.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
QPR v Forest on Saturday. Initially I thought penalty awarded to QPR should have been a red for the defender as the foul was a shove, but looking at it again there was a movement of the defenders foot towards the ball/player - although he ended up tripping him as well! - so a yellow about right I think.
When you're top of the league you can afford to be magnanimous!
When you're top of the league you can afford to be magnanimous!