The Ref Stop

Hypothetically Speaking...

T

TheRefereeFrom2003

New Member
I understand this is an unlikely event to happen in a football match, but someone asked me this the other day and I was intrigued as to what other refs would say
A Player of Team A (let’s call him Player 1) is stood in an offside position. A teammate of his (Player 2) passes back to Team A’s keeper (Player 3). The keeper misses the ball and it looks like it’s rolling in for an own goal, when Player 1 with lightning pace manages to get back and clear the ball off the line. So my question is
Is it offside?
If so
Where is the indirect free kick taken from?
Is it a red card for DOGSO?
What if Player 1 accidentally put it in his own goal. Would it be an offside or an own goal?
 
The Ref Stop
TheRefereeFrom2003 said:
I understand this is an unlikely event to happen in a football match, but someone asked me this the other day and I was intrigued as to what other refs would say
A Player of Team A (let’s call him Player 1) is stood in an offside position. A teammate of his (Player 2) passes back to Team A’s keeper (Player 3). The keeper misses the ball and it looks like it’s rolling in for an own goal, when Player 1 with lightning pace manages to get back and clear the ball off the line. So my question is
Is it offside?
If so
Where is the indirect free kick taken from?
Is it a red card for DOGSO?
What if Player 1 accidentally put it in his own goal. Would it be an offside or an own goal?
Click to expand...

Not really sure you've explained that too well mate. If all 3 players are on the same side, how can offside even be an issue? Unless I'm missing something .... ?
 
Player 1 in an offside position when the ball was kicked by player 2. @Kes in offside, more usual than not, all players with the touch are from the same side, remember offside?

Ok yes it is offside (however unlikely).
Restart is from the parallel 6 yard line closet to where the ball was touched by 2. IFK.
No DOGSO unless an opponent was just about to kick it in but in your description no opponent no DOGSO.
 
Kes said:
Not really sure you've explained that too well mate. If all 3 players are on the same side, how can offside even be an issue? Unless I'm missing something .... ?
Click to expand...
As far as I understand it, player 1 is offside in the opposing half, but managed to make it all the way back to his own goal to make the clearance?
 
one said:
Player 1 in an offside position when the ball was kicked by ayer 2.

Ok yes it is offside (however unlikely).
Restart is from the parallel 6 yard line closet to where the ball was touched. IFK.
No DOGSO unless an opponent was just about to kick it in but in your description no opponent no DOGSO.
Click to expand...

taking this random hypothetical thought to it's conclusion then...

why is dogso a consideration at all?

not a criticism, i've no clue if it's a lawful option!
 
es1 said:
taking this random hypothetical thought to it's conclusion then...

why is dogso a consideration at all?

not a criticism, i've no clue if it's a lawful option!
Click to expand...
• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose
overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by
a free kick

Given offside is punishable free kick and the opponent is there to tap it in, all criteria are met.
 
one said:
Player 1 in an offside position when the ball was kicked by player 2. @Kes in offside, more usual than not, all players with the touch are from the same side, remember offside?

Ok yes it is offside (however unlikely).
Restart is from the parallel 6 yard line closet to where the ball was touched by 2. IFK.
No DOGSO unless an opponent was just about to kick it in but in your description no opponent no DOGSO.
Click to expand...
Player 1 (offside position). Player 2 plays the ball back to his own goalkeeper (Player 3).

Offside?

Seriously?
 
one said:
• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose
overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by
a free kick

Given offside is punishable free kick and the opponent is there to tap it in, all criteria are met.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure that you're right and if you are, i'm very uncomfortable with the outcome.

basing your opinion on the term free kick (not direct and / or indirect) doesnt sit well.

i'd need the law to specify that this scenario was a potential dogso before i were to act on it (not that it'll ever ever ever happen!!)
 
one said:
Yes. You gotta read the book sometimes :). Direction of the kick is no factor at all in offside.

Oh on that last OP question, you play advantage and award the goal.
Click to expand...

I get what the book says, but if you applied that logic, Player 1 could never not be committing an offside offence.

Where do people dream this stuff up from?
 
Kes said:
I get what the book says, but if you applied that logic, Player 1 could never not be committing an offside offence.

Where do people dream this stuff up from?
Click to expand...
Think of it of a cross field slightly backward pass just inside own half form one side to the other when a team mate for an offside position comes back and touches the ball. The OP is just an extreme case of this.

es1 said:
i'm not sure that you're right and if you are, i'm very uncomfortable with the outcome.

basing your opinion on the term free kick (not direct and / or indirect) doesnt sit well.

i'd need the law to specify that this scenario was a potential dogso before i were to act on it (not that it'll ever ever ever happen!!)
Click to expand...
'free kick' in the DOGSO clause include both direct and indirect. 100%, no doubt about it.

Laws of the game would never list all different scenarios when an offence can be DOGSO. There will be way too many. Even if they did, they would not include the OP, it is the most improbable (I would say impossible) scenario.
 
Kes said:
Player 1 (offside position). Player 2 plays the ball back to his own goalkeeper (Player 3).

Offside?

Seriously?
Click to expand...
This was originally my thinking then I reread the words and he is closer to the goal than the ball.

I can’t wrap my head around the DOGSO arguments but.
 
Clear offside, although it’d mess with some people’s heads if awarded on the pitch I think
Already been said where IFK is taken from
I can see the debate over DOGSO but there is no way I think you can give it
Own Goal for the advantage
Not like it matters, unless Player 1 is on some serious steroids there’s no way he’s getting the pace to stop that going in
 
bester said:
Why does an opponent need to be there? He's denied a goal.
Click to expand...

EDIT: the following is no longer accurate; but see post 17. DOGSO-H addresses denying a goal. DOGSO-F only applies to denying an OGSO to an opponent. So @one is correct that it can only be a send off if there is an opponent there to kick the ball in.

(Of course, the scenario is absurd. But I did have a game several years ago in which an OS FK should have been taken back near the PA of the offending team. G19 game, attacker just barely across halfway line in OSP when GK kicks a truly horrible punt that goes far more up than out, with no players around. That OS forward was sprinting back while others were walking, and on the second bounce she got there, maybe 25 yards out from the goal line. I was the AR that should have flagged it, and I froze--partially processing and partially having no faith my R would see me or (with this particular R) understand the play if I flagged it. I was the only person there that had any idea that an OS infraction had actually occurred.)
 
Last edited:
As a thrown object is no longer considered an extension of the hand what happens if a player denies a goal in that manner?

I thought the deny a goal text was introduced to address that scenario as it was no longer covered by Dogso-Handling.
 
bester said:
As a thrown object is no longer considered an extension of the hand what happens if a player denies a goal in that manner?

I thought the deny a goal text was introduced to address that scenario as it was no longer covered by Dogso-Handling.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected--I forgot that they added DOG to DOGSO-F a couple of years ago.

Whether it would apply here, however, remains an interesting question: DOG-F is denying a goal to an opponent, where as DOG-H is to the opposing team. Since it would have been an own goal here, I still think it cannot technically be a send off unless, as one suggested, there is an opponent there. (I think, as written, the same would be true as to an item held in the hand or thrown--but I don't think IFAB remotely intended that when they tried to get around the problem of a GK throwing an item or holding an item and make it a PK. SOTG would suggest a send off.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one
Only way if makes sense to me as to read it as below

denying a goal by an offence punishable by a free kick
denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent ....

Explanation used when denying a goal was added to the LOTG

"Clarifies that denying a goal by committing an offence is a sending off offence"


@Peter Grove opinions?
 
While I agree that makes more sense, the words don't say that. But it really doesn't matter much in the real world. Aside from the silly OS hypothetical, what offense (aside from handling) could actually deny an own goal without an opponent there with a good chance to score? All I can think of is the throwing at/using an extension, which is itself a unicorn. SOTG, absolutely, send off, and likely no one will question it. Technical reading of Law 12 is different.

They could have really simplified this when they added DOG to DOGSO-F by collapsing them into one offense--there really is no reason to have two. As best I can tell, the reason there were two in the first place was that handling could deny a goal, not just an opportunity. (And the two led to some really weird interpretations in the US, but those are mercifully gone.)
 
Substitute coming onto the pitch without permission and stopping a goal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top