A&H

DOGSO - triple whammy - law change

Alex71

Alex71

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
I heard on the radio today that the outcome of the IFAB meeting in Belfast includes a recommendation to FIFA to remove one of the triple whammy of a DOGSO in the penalty area :
  • Player off
  • Penalty
  • Suspension from another game
Surprisingly, the recommendation was to remove the 3rd bullet above - not - as expected - the 1st bullet

Anyone else hear this ..?
Anyone else surprised at this ..?

Other suggestions of a 5th official with a tv screen, a 4th sub and the 'Stadium' (and not the Ref) managing the clock were not taken forward
 
The Referee Store
I hate the 'triple punishment' argument. Personally, I think it's nonsense.


If the player isn't suspended from another game, then you're inviting players to commit DOGSO in the dying minutes of a game. Because really - why on earth wouldn't you? In stoppage time, you're up 2-1, opponent has an OGSO running for goal and you're behind him - what possible reason would you have for NOT committing DOGSO?

The triple punishment doesn't exist.
The free kick is to restore the balance - though if it's outside the PA it doesn't even come close. Sure, in the PA it's replacing one OGSO with another, but I don't think that's sufficient to say 'the foul was no big deal then'. Not all OGSO's are created equal either.

No red card? Again, no real deterrent. Deny the goal, your team doesn't even play a man down. So no real penalty for that game.

The 3 aspects are needed - and it's no different to any other red card, so I fail to see the argument.
 
It seems to me as its a law change pandering to the upper echelons of the game and ignoring the grassroot masses.
I've had this theory for a while - in live TV matches, how many times do you see the ref caution instead of send off when awarding a penalty for DOGSO, specially GKs? To me it seems too often.
 
@David Sutton it was my understanding that the player needed to be heading towards goal for it to be a red, so often with a goal keeper the attacker is rounding him, therefore heading away from goal.
 
DaveMac said:
@David Sutton it was my understanding that the player needed to be heading towards goal for it to be a red, so often with a goal keeper the attacker is rounding him, therefore heading away from goal.
Click to expand...
True @DaveMac but I was thinking about those that I'd consider DOGSO (which is always subjective and open to some debate in these circles). Sometimes you get these little theories in your head. In a live game, it seems as though the ref is more likely to keep the player on the pitch (yellow) than send off (red). They don't want to spoil the game for the watching masses?
Can we call this law change "The Brown Amendment"?
 
DaveMac said:
@David Sutton it was my understanding that the player needed to be heading towards goal for it to be a red, so often with a goal keeper the attacker is rounding him, therefore heading away from goal.
Click to expand...

Define 'heading towards goal'. There was a good discussion about this recently, but basically it shouldn't mean 'running in a straight line directly towards the space between the actual goalposts'. Attackers should be allowed to round a keeper without it somehow meaning there's no OGSO. Remove the 'check-box refereeing' from it and you know there's still an OGSO in that situation - it's absurd to claim otherwise.

Of course it can depend on how much they angle away from goal, but on principle it's a misunderstanding of the law, IMO. Though it can be used as an escape clause if you really don't want to give it (eg 6-0 game, U/10 and mistimed tackle, that sort of thing)
 
Just referring to the subject of this thread. The change is not to the laws of the game so essentially the laws of the game remain unchanged on this matter. Its the disciplinary aspect which will get changed which is not covered in the LOTG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top