GK challenge OGSO advantage conundrum

[santa sangria]

U20 first game of the season, unusually large amount of watchers (maybe 70), a few rungs down, not the greatest quality... blue raced to a 4-0 lead, it ended 5-3 but the away coach wanted words after about three KMIs. I'll get the easy ones out of the way:

- Away striker and defender end up tangling over the ball just outside the box, neither player has possession, I think it's careless by the defender and award attacking DFK, but there's no control, the ball is kinda behind them as they go down, it's not SPA for me, so no card. I explained this to AR2 at half time and he bought it. The coach disagreed though

- Away striker is a very large young chap and has put himself about with a bit a flailing and has picked up a YC for a really poor slider, I watched hime very closely all game. One moment the defender got to the ball and our hero went down theatrically, I shouted "nothing for me" and play continued. Coach after the game accuses me of shouting that his player dived, specifically accused me of saying a phrase in a foreign language that I don't know or understand! I explained after the game I didn't say he dived, I didn't say "that" because I don't understand it and it's not in my vocabulary... he did't buy it. I'm pretty sure it's going to be talked about at HQ! LOL

- The important one and question for you: blue striker is through just off centre and GK comes out of the box, striker just gets there first and pushes the ball quite laterally to the side, GK clips him enough to put him off balance, it's a clear careless foul, 23 yards out, striker now moving to the side to pick up loose ball and turning on it off balance to shoot into an open goal, he maybe takes two steps and swivels to shoot... I wait to see if there's an advantage, striker shoots and misses the open goal, I give DFK and YC the GK. After the game the coach accuses me of playing advantage and giving striker two bites, which I didn't as I didn't signal advantage. I waited a couple of seconds, yes, but no advantage signalled or given.

...we talked about this with the ARs after. Maybe there were 3 choices here:
1/ blow straight away with DOGSO RC for the GK and DFK;
2/ signal advantage straight away and then SPA YC the GK regardless of whether the ball ends in the net;
3/ wait to see the shot and then either goal no card, or no goal YC/DFK (my choice this time)

The actual result in this case (DFK and YC for the goalkeeper) was actually a great outcome for the defence (rather than goal or RC) but the coach wasn't happy!

So, is there another option I could have taken... or what would you have done?

 

[Mintyref]

Think you need to either give the foul immediately or allow an advantage; which in this case, the striker failed to use. Coach was correct in my view. Don't think it was dogso either as you state the striker played to ball sideways, but I guess I'd really need to see it to be sure.

 

[santa sangria]

Don't think it was dogso either as you state the striker played to ball sideways, but I guess I'd really need to see it to be sure.

Open goal though He only played it sideways to avoid the keeper.

Think you need to either give the foul immediately or allow an advantage; which in this case, the striker failed to use. Coach was correct in my view.

Immediate advantage would have been good, yes, I agree. And YC for GK for attempts to stop SPA whether the ball goes in or not, or skip the card if goal?

 

[RobOda]

The answer for the card is in the LOTG Law 12.3

ADVANTAGE

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

 

[Mintyref]

Open goal though He only played it sideways to avoid the keeper.


Immediate advantage would have been good, yes, I agree. And YC for GK for attempts to stop SPA whether the ball goes in or not, or skip the card if goal?

As I said, I'd need to see it, but at the moment of the foul, the striker wasn't heading towards goal.......

The answer for the card is in the LOTG Law 12.3

ADVANTAGE

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

If indeed it was dogso............

 

[Ciley Myrus]

1


That is all

 

[santa sangria]

As I said, I'd need to see it, but at the moment of the foul, the striker wasn't heading towards goal.......



If indeed it was dogso............

The four DOGSO criteria are to be considered - they don't have to all be met 100%... there are bizarre cases where one criterion is not met.
And it's "general direction of play" as written not direction of the ball...

• distance between the offence and the goal - just about OK at 25 yards... and mitigated by it being an open goal
• general direction of the play - generally quite central and heading goalwards, with a nick around the keeper to the side
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - 100% solid
• location and number of defenders - different postcode with the exception of the GK

I think DOGSO would be easy to justify based on the laws... but... it wasn't a "big" foul... GK genuinely tried to get the ball, caught the attacker body on body... immediate whistle and red would have seemed extreme.

I think you are right with the early advantage call - that's the learning here. Big advantage call as he shoots appear fair to everyone, easily sold to all.

 

[santa sangria]

The answer for the card is in the LOTG Law 12.3

ADVANTAGE

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

And for slow readers like me there is an explanation paragraph for this that explains the change to the new wording in 2018:

"If the referee plays advantage for a DOGSO and a goal is scored it is a YC but
technically if no goal results the Law said it should be a RC. This is never applied
and is not seen as ‘fair’ as applying the advantage effectively means that a
goal-scoring opportunity remains; consequently, a YC is the fairest sanction,
whether or not a goal is scored."

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Right.

Why make EXCUSES not to send someone off?

See a dogso?
Give a dogso


Nobody would even bat an eyelid


Complicate it? Up to you to sort it. You broke it. You fix it

 

[JH]

The four DOGSO criteria are to be considered - they don't have to all be met 100%... there are bizarre cases where one criterion is not met.
And it's "general direction of play" as written not direction of the ball...

• distance between the offence and the goal - just about OK at 25 yards... and mitigated by it being an open goal
• general direction of the play - generally quite central and heading goalwards, with a nick around the keeper to the side
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - 100% solid
• location and number of defenders - different postcode with the exception of the GK

I think DOGSO would be easy to justify based on the laws... but... it wasn't a "big" foul... GK genuinely tried to get the ball, caught the attacker body on body... immediate whistle and red would have seemed extreme.

I think you are right with the early advantage call - that's the learning here. Big advantage call as he shoots appear fair to everyone, easily sold to all.

All you're saying here is that is was DOGSO, so why did you punish it as SPA?

I agree, I think when all the attacker has to do is slot it away, advantage and caution is the way to go, if he misses how is it your fault? You just say: "Did you have a clear opportunity to score? Yes? Not my fault you missed..."

 

[one]

Don't think it was dogso either as you state the striker played to ball sideways,

but at the moment of the foul, the striker wasn't heading towards goal.......

DOGSO criteria was changed from "moving towards the player’s goal" to "overall movement is towards the offender’s goal" for the specific reason of the OP when attacker is going around a keeper. So no issue for considering it as DOGSO as far as I can see.

I like the fact that you discuss the KMI's with ARs at HT and FT @santa sangria. A very good practice if done the right way. As an AR I have had refs who were willing to have an open minded discussion which has been great. But also had refs who basically wanted a discussion to prove themselves right and having none of any alternate views. A pointless an annoying discussion.

Caution was correct here on the DOGSO incident. The restart for me should have been a goal kick the way it is described. It does sound like two bites at the cherry if it has taken two seconds for the shot to be taken from the foul. It means you decided a slightly off balance (if that) shot on an empty goal is more beneficial than a FK which translates to applying advantage. At that moment I would also do the signal before or as the kick is being taken. The only time I would bring play back for FK is if the shot is virtually as the foul happens or immediately after (less than half a second). It is justified by not having enough time to make a decision on advantage. The antidote to "two bites at the cherry" is to signal advantage as soon as you know the non-offending team is in a more beneficial position even if it is not a clear cut big benefit.

The other point to note to support the argument above, you have proven it was DOGSO, you say you did not play advantage (so you can't apply the reduction of punishment for DOGSO). The offence also turns out to become a SPA since a goal was not scored. Why did you decide to punish the less serious offence of SPA-Y instead of the more serious offence of DOGSO-R?

On another note, it sounds as though you had a long discussion with the coach after the game in which his sole purpose was to criticise (accuse) you. No good can come out of a discussion when a coach approaches you with a critical and "you were wrong" attitude. I'd cut the discussion short and get out of there quickly. On the other hand if a coach is seeking an explanation and moves on once you give it, I'll have all the time in the world for him if he asks for further clarification.

Footnote:
There is a gap between DOGSO application and SPA application which I think will be filled in future. DOGSO punishment is reduced when leading to a goal or when advantage is played (when attempting to DOGSO). No such reduction for SPA. The fact that attempting to SPA is explicitly a caution means even after advantage is played it is still a yellow card and that is very inconsistent with the approach taken for DOGSO.

 

[santa sangria]

DOGSO criteria was changed from "moving towards the player’s goal" to "overall movement is towards the offender’s goal" for the specific reason of the OP when attacker is going around a keeper. So no issue for considering it as DOGSO as far as I can see.

I like the fact that you discuss the KMI's with ARs at HT and FT @santa sangria. A very good practice if done the right way. As an AR I have had refs who were willing to have an open minded discussion which has been great. But also had refs who basically wanted a discussion to prove themselves right and having none of any alternate views. A pointless an annoying discussion.

Caution was correct here on the DOGSO incident. The restart for me should have been a goal kick the way it is described. It does sound like two bites at the cherry if it has taken two seconds for the shot to be taken from the foul. It means you decided a slightly off balance (if that) shot on an empty goal is more beneficial than a FK which translates to applying advantage. At that moment I would also do the signal before or as the kick is being taken. The only time I would bring play back for FK is if the shot is virtually as the foul happens or immediately after (less than half a second). It is justified by not having enough time to make a decision on advantage. The antidote to "two bites at the cherry" is to signal advantage as soon as you know the non-offending team is in a more beneficial position even if it is not a clear cut big benefit.

The other point to note to support the argument above, you have proven it was DOGSO, you say you did not play advantage (so you can't apply the reduction of punishment for DOGSO). The offence also turns out to become a SPA since a goal was not scored. Why did you decide to punish the less serious offence of SPA-Y instead of the more serious offence of DOGSO-R?

On another note, it sounds as though you had a long discussion with the coach after the game in which his sole purpose was to criticise (accuse) you. No good can come out of a discussion when a coach approaches you with a critical and "you were wrong" attitude. I'd cut the discussion short and get out of there quickly. On the other hand if a coach is seeking an explanation and moves on once you give it, I'll have all the time in the world for him if he asks for further clarification.

Footnote:
There is a gap between DOGSO application and SPA application which I think will be filled in future. DOGSO punishment is reduced when leading to a goal or when advantage is played (when attempting to DOGSO). No such reduction for SPA. The fact that attempting to SPA is explicitly a caution means even after advantage is played it is still a yellow card and that is very inconsistent with the approach taken for DOGSO.

Good stuff there.

The coach asked to talk at the final whistle. I made him wait until after the handshakes. He started polite. He was a bit giddy though. We went through the 3 above. ARs were there. Of course it could have been quicker but it wasn’t long.

And why no RC given I gave the DFK? Well, I explained my logic. A RC would have been unexpected and incendiary after the shot had missed.

 

[one]

And why no RC given I gave the DFK? Well, I explained my logic. A RC would have been unexpected and incendiary after the shot had missed.

Ah but none of those two (unexpected, there was a shot and missed) are correct justification in law. Putting game management and justifying your decision the the coach aside, my response is purely based on what should the decision be based on Law 12 (a possible discussion between ref and ARs).

DOGSO situation? YHTBT but you say it was so I take that as fact.

• If you played advantage then its yellow card and goal kick restart.
• If you didn't play advantage its a red card and DFK.

There are no other options.


Other things like, he took a shot and missed, what every one expects, how to sell it, it would be too harsh for a red... is irrelevant in law. But I did say the correct thing to do was to signal advantage (which I think you mentally applied anyway) and then this discussion would have been moot

 

[Ganajin]

In your OP you say the foul was "enough to put him off balance" and a second or two later the shot was taken as he was "turning on it off balance". So how on earth can we say that his missing the shot was not affected by the foul? You did not call advantage, so come back for the free kick and RC the keeper - any other course of action is actually encouraging fouls of this kind. All this rubbish about "two bites at the cherry" is b.s., If the defence want him to have just one bite - don't foul him.

 

[one]

All this rubbish about "two bites at the cherry" is b.s., If the defence want him to have just one bite - don't foul him.

Disagree with this. If that was the case then triple punishment would have never been changed. If you don't want triple punishment don't foul him. For me, its about balance of fairness. He was fouled, allowing the opponent to have a shot on empty goal and if it didn't go in then coming back to the FK (or pen in some cases) will tilt the fairness balance too far in favour of the non-offending team.

In an extreme example, its like saying every foul is a red card. If you don't want to be send off don't foul.

 

[Ganajin]

For me, its about balance of fairness. He was fouled, allowing the opponent to have a shot on empty goal and if it didn't go in then coming back to the FK (or pen in some cases) will tilt the fairness balance too far in favour of the non-offending team.

Pretty much works this way in Rugby.

 

[Russell Jones]

Pretty much works this way in Rugby.

And as @one says, the choice in Rugby tilts the balance markedly in favour of the non offending team. IMO, this is one of the Laws where football has got it much more right and fair.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

U20 first game of the season, unusually large amount of watchers (maybe 70), a few rungs down, not the greatest quality... blue raced to a 4-0 lead, it ended 5-3 but the away coach wanted words after about three KMIs. I'll get the easy ones out of the way:

- Away striker and defender end up tangling over the ball just outside the box, neither player has possession, I think it's careless by the defender and award attacking DFK, but there's no control, the ball is kinda behind them as they go down, it's not SPA for me, so no card. I explained this to AR2 at half time and he bought it. The coach disagreed though

Reasoning sounds fair

- Away striker is a very large young chap and has put himself about with a bit a flailing and has picked up a YC for a really poor slider, I watched hime very closely all game. One moment the defender got to the ball and our hero went down theatrically, I shouted "nothing for me" and play continued. Coach after the game accuses me of shouting that his player dived, specifically accused me of saying a phrase in a foreign language that I don't know or understand! I explained after the game I didn't say he dived, I didn't say "that" because I don't understand it and it's not in my vocabulary... he did't buy it. I'm pretty sure it's going to be talked about at HQ! LOL

Sounds like it was a dive though? Why no caution?

[/QUOTE]
- The important one and question for you: blue striker is through just off centre and GK comes out of the box, striker just gets there first and pushes the ball quite laterally to the side, GK clips him enough to put him off balance, it's a clear careless foul, 23 yards out, striker now moving to the side to pick up loose ball and turning on it off balance to shoot into an open goal, he maybe takes two steps and swivels to shoot... I wait to see if there's an advantage, striker shoots and misses the open goal, I give DFK and YC the GK. After the game the coach accuses me of playing advantage and giving striker two bites, which I didn't as I didn't signal advantage. I waited a couple of seconds, yes, but no advantage signalled or given.

...we talked about this with the ARs after. Maybe there were 3 choices here:
1/ blow straight away with DOGSO RC for the GK and DFK;
2/ signal advantage straight away and then SPA YC the GK regardless of whether the ball ends in the net;
3/ wait to see the shot and then either goal no card, or no goal YC/DFK (my choice this time)

The actual result in this case (DFK and YC for the goalkeeper) was actually a great outcome for the defence (rather than goal or RC) but the coach wasn't happy!

So, is there another option I could have taken... or what would you have done?[/QUOTE]
3rd option.

Advantage is so misunderstood. And here, you have the attacker, with a POTENTIAL advantage, and an open goal.

So we should ALL be holding the whistle in that situation, 100%.

At what point does 'wait and see' become 'advantage'?

Well, remember that ADVANTAGE = POSSESSION + OPPORTUNITY

He had possession, yes. What constitutes opportunity?
Field position, potential outcome...and likelihood to be able to make good of that. For instance, a player with a defender closing down has limited opportunity, and if the defender intercepts it's probably not that players fault.

Retaining possession after the sweeper fouls, but being forced to a narrow angle, is another area where you have less opportunity.

I've had instances where an attacker is running for goal, needs to clear another defender to have a decent shot, 2nd defender sprinting across. Attacker is fouled, regains his feet, establishes control, lines it up, takes the shot - and the shot is good, but it was intercepted by that 2nd defender. The defender who wasn't there when they were fouled. So, even though they took a good shot, the opportunity was still highly inferior - so I went back to the foul.
The first thing I thought of when I read this - was the attacker off-balance? If they were clearly off balance and scuffed the shot, then for me, that's no advantage. Some may argue it's their fault for scuffing the shot - but I think they're under pressure from the keeper they think is immediately behind them. All too often you see attackers do the right thing, try to shoot as they're struggling to keep balance and it goes out for a goal kick (or gets intercepted), and referees automatically think 'oh they took a shot, that's advantage'. WRONG!!

Or did they turn, line it up, and just stuff it up? If so, then it's on them, and it's a goal kick.

Don't place too much stock in whether or not you signalled advantage. Just because you didn't have the chance to signal it doesn't mean you can't consider advantage to be played. Still consider all the same things.

So, it comes back to - why was the outcome not favourable (ie goal).

And was that still because of the original foul, or simply because he mucked up the opportunity?

 

[Kes]

I've had instances where an attacker is running for goal, needs to clear another defender to have a decent shot, 2nd defender sprinting across. Attacker is fouled, regains his feet, establishes control, lines it up, takes the shot - and the shot is good, but it was intercepted by that 2nd defender. The defender who wasn't there when they were fouled. So, even though they took a good shot, the opportunity was still highly inferior - so I went back to the foul.

I get your reasoning there but I'll bet the defending team gave you some stick for that one! ?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I get your reasoning there but I'll bet the defending team gave you some stick for that one! ?

Nope. Had this sort of thing a few times. I get a few complaints, but nothing over the top. Nothing worse than what you get having given the foul in the first place really.