Goalkeeper DOGSO

[theSinghStar]

Hi folks - long time reader of threads on this forum and first time poster. Have learnt so much just from reading other people's questions and I had an incident of my own last week and wanted some advice and check my understanding.

Attacking player was through on goal and one on one with the keeper. Keeper came running out and took the player out, it was just on the edge of the box and I blew for the penalty. Admittedly I spoke to some of the fans on the sideline at half time and they said it happened just outside the box and the player did fall outside the box so I actually thin it should have been a freekick just outside the box. The question I have is what happens in each scenario:

1. The keeper fouls the player inside the box and it was DOGSO - what should happen in this scenario? This is what I did. I cautioned the keeper as he went for the ball but it was a foul and DOGSO.
2. The keeper fouls the player outside the box and it was DOGSO - should the keeper be sent off even if he did play the ball as it's outside the box and DOGSO?

Appreciate all the banter, support and advice everyone gives on here.

 

[JamesL]

Hi folks - long time reader of threads on this forum and first time poster. Have learnt so much just from reading other people's questions and I had an incident of my own last week and wanted some advice and check my understanding.

Attacking player was through on goal and one on one with the keeper. Keeper came running out and took the player out, it was just on the edge of the box and I blew for the penalty. Admittedly I spoke to some of the fans on the sideline at half time and they said it happened just outside the box and the player did fall outside the box so I actually thin it should have been a freekick just outside the box. The question I have is what happens in each scenario:

1. The keeper fouls the player inside the box and it was DOGSO - what should happen in this scenario? This is what I did. I cautioned the keeper as he went for the ball but it was a foul and DOGSO.

If the keeper attempted to play /challenge for the ball AND a penalty kick is awarded the sanction is a yellow card.

1. The keeper fouls the player outside the box and it was DOGSO - should the keeper be sent off even if he did play the ball as it's outside the box and DOGSO?

In this case a penalty is not awarded therefore attempt to play/challenge for the ball has no impact on the sanction and a red card is issued.

Appreciate all the banter, support and advice everyone gives on here.

The key point to takeaway here is the combination of restart and action that drives the sanction rather than the location of the offence. For example if a player commits an idfk offence in the penalty area, such as Playing in a dangerous manner, which also DOGSO although it is an attempt for the ball it is an idfk restart and so a red card should still be issued

I hope this makes sense.

 

[theSinghStar]

Thanks @JamesL - that's very clear.

On the DOGSO itself - the player was through on goal and knocked the ball to the side of the keeper before getting taken out. If he'd not been fouled he would've had an open goal and the next touch would have been to score. However, he took the ball to the side and so I had defenders in my ear saying it wasn't DOGSO as there was another defender nearby - this defender was too far away to be able to do anything about it and slightly behind the play which is why I saw it as DOGSO.

I played football for years before becoming a ref this year (just completed my fifth game) - and in my view it is an obvious goalscoring position - in the middle of the goal on the edge of the box.

Since the player took the ball to the side should it still be a DOGSO?

 

[RefereeX]

Thanks @JamesL - that's very clear.

On the DOGSO itself - the player was through on goal and knocked the ball to the side of the keeper before getting taken out. If he'd not been fouled he would've had an open goal and the next touch would have been to score. However, he took the ball to the side and so I had defenders in my ear saying it wasn't DOGSO as there was another defender nearby - this defender was too far away to be able to do anything about it and slightly behind the play which is why I saw it as DOGSO.

I played football for years before becoming a ref this year (just completed my fifth game) - and in my view it is an obvious goalscoring position - in the middle of the goal on the edge of the box.

Since the player took the ball to the side should it still be a DOGSO?

Hi @theSinghStar.

Sounds like a DOGSO to me (without seeing it). I don't think there are many DOGSO situations where you don't have players from the defending team trying to convince you that there were covering defenders - it doesn't make it true.

The 4 considerations for DOGSO are as follows:

Distance - how close to or far away from goal is the attacker at the point of the foul?
Direction - is the striker heading towards goal? (Knocking the ball sideways around a goalkeeper doesn't negate the overall direction he's going unless he knocks it too far sideways)
Control - did the attacker have clear control of the ball?
Defenders - where were defenders? Could they have made a challenge.

 

[JamesL]

Thanks @JamesL - that's very clear.

On the DOGSO itself - the player was through on goal and knocked the ball to the side of the keeper before getting taken out. If he'd not been fouled he would've had an open goal and the next touch would have been to score. However, he took the ball to the side and so I had defenders in my ear saying it wasn't DOGSO as there was another defender nearby - this defender was too far away to be able to do anything about it and slightly behind the play which is why I saw it as DOGSO.

I played football for years before becoming a ref this year (just completed my fifth game) - and in my view it is an obvious goalscoring position - in the middle of the goal on the edge of the box.

Since the player took the ball to the side should it still be a DOGSO?

Sounds like it but it's hard to give an objective opinion having not been there.

The consideration for direction of play is general direction of play is towards goal. This was reworded to recognise that a player can be moving away from the goal but their overall movement i.e. general direction of play is towards the goal. For example to go around a player, often you would need to move away from goal, but that shouldn't necessarily remove the obvious nature of the opportunity as it can be clear that the players overall movement is still goalbound

You are saying in your writing that:

Distance was close to goal
the player was likely to regain control of the ball,
no defenders were on a position to affect/impact
the overall direction was towards goal.

So as written sounds like a DOGSO.

 

[theSinghStar]

Thanks guys - it's great to get the validation on decisions made. It was my first penalty and it was probably outside the area which would have resulted in a red card for the keeper instead. The learning curve is so steep in these first games - I feel like I'm learning something new in each game.
My positioning is getting better but still needs work - how close do you tend to get to the action? I track my games and I'm running 12km a game with 50 sprints last time out - I'm loving being fitter than some of the players . In my last few games I've tended to stay out of the boxes but and stay within the width of the box. How close should we be to the action?

 

[JamesL]

Thanks guys - it's great to get the validation on decisions made. It was my first penalty and it was probably outside the area which would have resulted in a red card for the keeper instead. The learning curve is so steep in these first games - I feel like I'm learning something new in each game.
My positioning is getting better but still needs work - how close do you tend to get to the action? I track my games and I'm running 12km a game with 50 sprints last time out - I'm loving being fitter than some of the players . In my last few games I've tended to stay out of the boxes but and stay within the width of the box. How close should we be to the action?

Optimum distance is usually touted as 15-20 yards although guidance on positioning and movement changes.

Ultimately the best position is one from which you can make the correct decision... Easy, right?

 

[theSinghStar]

Haha. Yeh - easy on paper!! Getting the right view is tough while not getting in the way of the game itself. I've heard about the lazy S but guess that only works well with proper ARs.

 

[FirsFox40]

20-yard circular ref zone right in the middle!

(Or sit in the technical area, can see EVERYTHING from there apparently).

 

[RustyRef]

Thanks guys - it's great to get the validation on decisions made. It was my first penalty and it was probably outside the area which would have resulted in a red card for the keeper instead. The learning curve is so steep in these first games - I feel like I'm learning something new in each game.
My positioning is getting better but still needs work - how close do you tend to get to the action? I track my games and I'm running 12km a game with 50 sprints last time out - I'm loving being fitter than some of the players . In my last few games I've tended to stay out of the boxes but and stay within the width of the box. How close should we be to the action?

The key thing for positioning for challenges in the penalty area or just outside is to have an angled view. The last place you want to be is directly behind a challenge as you'll likely be looking through a tangle of legs and it is harder to see the contact. That's why you'll watch the top level referees run diagonally left as an attacker is running through on goal, even though it means they have to look sideways they get a much better angle to see any contact and where it happened.

 

[Athers]

Thanks guys - it's great to get the validation on decisions made. It was my first penalty and it was probably outside the area which would have resulted in a red card for the keeper instead. The learning curve is so steep in these first games - I feel like I'm learning something new in each game.
My positioning is getting better but still needs work - how close do you tend to get to the action? I track my games and I'm running 12km a game with 50 sprints last time out - I'm loving being fitter than some of the players . In my last few games I've tended to stay out of the boxes but and stay within the width of the box. How close should we be to the action?

I find if you stand next to any goalkeeper then they tend to have the best view of any incident.

 

[OldNavyRef]

Just a quick one about how RIGID the direction rule is interpreted by you lot.

Never had this scenario just thought of it.

Attacker and goalkeeper are outside box, no one else around. Attacker has back to goal and has full control of the ball and GK is stood holding him from behind. Before attacker can turn the keeper fouls him (while trying to play the ball, while outside of the box).

I'd give that as DOGSO? Even though he is static with back to goal.

 

[socal lurker]

Just a quick one about how RIGID the direction rule is interpreted by you lot.

Never had this scenario just thought of it.

Attacker and goalkeeper are outside box, no one else around. Attacker has back to goal and has full control of the ball and GK is stood holding him from behind. Before attacker can turn the keeper fouls him (while trying to play the ball, while outside of the box).

I'd give that as DOGSO? Even though he is static with back to goal.

You need to look at the bigger picture—how did they get there? It is the general direction of play that matters. If this was from an advancing pass to the forward “posting up,” I think direction is satisfied. If the attacker dribbled the ball back away from the goal, it wouldn’t be.

 

[one]

Just a quick one about how RIGID the direction rule is interpreted by you lot.

Never had this scenario just thought of it.

Attacker and goalkeeper are outside box, no one else around. Attacker has back to goal and has full control of the ball and GK is stood holding him from behind. Before attacker can turn the keeper fouls him (while trying to play the ball, while outside of the box).

I'd give that as DOGSO? Even though he is static with back to goal.

From your post I read that twice you mention attacker's back to goal.

The laws have a criteria and a consideration in terms of direction, non of which is referring to which way the attacker is facing.

- " ... opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal..."
- "general direction of the play"

You can move backward toward opponent's goal. And you can play the ball towards goal while not facing it. Having said that your scenario is YHTBT.

 

[Russell Jones]

You need to look at the bigger picture—how did they get there? It is the general direction of play that matters. If this was from an advancing pass to the forward “posting up,” I think direction is satisfied. If the attacker dribbled the ball back away from the goal, it wouldn’t be.

Unusually, I disagree with you! The 4 points around DOGSO are considerations not pass / fail criteria. They are simply there to help shed light on whether (or not) an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity has been denied. A striker dribbling the ball away from goal towards halfway but then fouled by the GK (say on the edge of the penalty area) with no other defenders anywhere nearby, has still highly likely been denied an OGSO. Take out the offending player (the GK) and the attacker's next action would be to turn around and shoot towards an unguarded goal ....

 

[Runner Ref]

Unusually, I disagree with you! The 4 points around DOGSO are considerations not pass / fail criteria. They are simply there to help shed light on whether (or not) an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity has been denied. A striker dribbling the ball away from goal towards halfway but then fouled by the GK (say on the edge of the penalty area) with no other defenders anywhere nearby, has still highly likely been denied an OGSO. Take out the offending player (the GK) and the attacker's next action would be to turn around and shoot towards an unguarded goal ....

I’m sure there was a clip posted on here a couple of years back, may have been posted by @RustyRef, of an attacker dribbling away from goal, but with only the goalkeeper between him and the goal inside the PA.

Can’t remember if this was before the card colour change for DOGSO or not, but pretty sure it was deemed DOGSO

 

[santa sangria]

Unusually, I disagree with you! The 4 points around DOGSO are considerations not pass / fail criteria. They are simply there to help shed light on whether (or not) an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity has been denied. A striker dribbling the ball away from goal towards halfway but then fouled by the GK (say on the edge of the penalty area) with no other defenders anywhere nearby, has still highly likely been denied an OGSO. Take out the offending player (the GK) and the attacker's next action would be to turn around and shoot towards an unguarded goal ....

A thousand times this!

A player under the bar facing away from goal etc…. There are lots of wierd and wonderful scenarios we can invent where only 1,2 or 3 considerations are met.

 

[socal lurker]

Unusually, I disagree with you! The 4 points around DOGSO are considerations not pass / fail criteria. They are simply there to help shed light on whether (or not) an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity has been denied. A striker dribbling the ball away from goal towards halfway but then fouled by the GK (say on the edge of the penalty area) with no other defenders anywhere nearby, has still highly likely been denied an OGSO. Take out the offending player (the GK) and the attacker's next action would be to turn around and shoot towards an unguarded goal ....

The take the offender off is nowhere in the Laws. How much you have to have at least a bit of all four has long been a debate—in the US it was long taught (erroneously IMO) that all four must be there and be obvious. But I do think there has to be some indication of the play going towards the goal for it to be an OGSO. If the attacker with the ball isn’t moving toward the goal at all, I don’t think it qualifies. But even a turn towards it would be enough. Shrug. It’s an extreme hypo that will never happen.

 

[RustyRef]

I had one years ago where the keeper was messing around with the ball on the floor and an attacker took it off him. The defenders all thought he was going long so were at least 40 metres away, the ball bounced off the keeper's legs towards the penalty spot and the attacker moved towards it, moving away from goal. At this point the keeper pretty much rugby tackled him. Easy penalty and red card, the keeper was walking before I got the card out, but it certainly didn't meet all 4 criteria as he was moving in completely the opposite direction to goal.

 

[Russell Jones]

The take the offender off is nowhere in the Laws. How much you have to have at least a bit of all four has long been a debate—in the US it was long taught (erroneously IMO) that all four must be there and be obvious. But I do think there has to be some indication of the play going towards the goal for it to be an OGSO. If the attacker with the ball isn’t moving toward the goal at all, I don’t think it qualifies. But even a turn towards it would be enough. Shrug. It’s an extreme hypo that will never happen.

I agree, removing the offending defender is not specifically called out in law - but I've not heard anyone seriously debate this and I'm not sure how, practically, we would decide whether / how to include them in our thinking

I'm not sure how there is a debate on 'how much' of all four you need. The Laws are clear, that all four simply 'must be considered'. The intent of this is clear - if you, as the referee, believe that an OGSO has been denied then you send off (or sometimes downgrade to yellow) ... the considerations are just there to drive greater consistency in reaching this conclusion.