zarathustra
RefChat Addict
That makes sense to me, I bet that is one of those once in a life time situations.
You could be right.If the offence was explicitly punishable by the award of an indirect free kick, then you would be able to send off for DOGSO. As it is, because the indirect free kick is only awarded because you are stopping play to administer the caution, my understanding is that you can't send off for DOGSO in this situation.
Actually I think based on the above there's a definite case that you're right to send off for it. I agree that there's no way I can think of where showing dissent could ever deny an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity!2. Indirect free kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or
attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
• commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is
stopped to caution or send off a player
I hope it is!That makes sense to me, I bet that is one of those once in a life time situations.
That was my take at the time. It was certainly the player's intention, and it actually won them the game, because his team won even though down to ten men. The goal would have tied the match but they missed the resultant free kick........although if a player was 5 yards out from an open goal, and a verbal distraction caused him to miss......hard to sell not giving the DOGSO......