I think you've misunderstood how DOGSO works if I'm honest. Once the challenge is made, you make a decision based on the attack what was happening at that time. I.e Once the player is fouled (or throws himself to ground as you put it) was this during an OGSO or a promising attack. How he goes to ground doesn't change that.
MNC FUL (DOGSO question)
- Thread starter Mr Dean
- Start date
I think you've misunderstood how DOGSO works if I'm honest. Once the challenge is made, you make a decision based on the attack what was happening at that time. I.e Once the player is fouled (or throws himself to ground as you put it) was this during an OGSO or a promising attack. How he goes to ground doesn't change that.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Exactly what I was thinking.
16 yards out, one on one, that is a very high chance of scoring a goal.
16 yards out, defenders in front/around him, this is a chance (note, not necessarily a good chance) of scoring a goal.
That is the difference. Regardless of the method of hitting the deck (some fouls don't even need the player to lose their footing), if in scenario one above you foul them, then you have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity - obvious because one on one the chance is extremely high compared to being surrounded by defenders (and some in front of you).
Penalty and red card in every one of my games I'm telling you.
I only asked the question because if Jesus stays on his feet and scores a goal (after advantage is played), Ream will only get a yellow card. It would be a strange anomaly in the laws if diving can lawfully get an opponent sent off.
It's not an anomaly.
If the attacker scores, the goal has not been denied, caution for USB.
If the attacker does not score, the OGSO has been denied, dismissal every time.
If the defender wants to stay on the field, maybe they shouldn't DOGSO!
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Diving doesn't get the opponent sent off. Fouling a player with an OGSO does. The exception is if advantage is played, which would mean a better opportunity than the PK or FK that would result from the foul.
And as been said many times on here, when refs have a tendency to not call actual fouls unless the player falls down, it is difficult to fault players who are fouled and fall down--which is fundamentally different from players who were not fouled falling down to try to manufacture a foul call.
I can sort of see where you’re coming from but I think you’re looking too much into it.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
You've made that claim a couple of times now, stating it as if it were some kind of established fact - it isn't, it's just a personal opinion and one that I would say is fundamentally flawed.
As various contributors have mentioned, how a player who had an obvious goal scoring opportunity goes to ground after being fouled does not alter the nature of the original foul, or the judgement of whether it's DOGSO or SPA.
I'm sorry, but based on all the responses here, not only myself but everyone else who's contributed to this thread feels you're looking at this the wrong way.
Unless simulation (cheating) predominates contact that is a borderline foul (yes/no?)
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Thanks for asking the IFAB, Russell. It seems the Vatican has spoken.Good to see IFAB confirming on Twitter what everyone on here has been saying
I never once said it shouldn't be a red card. I only asked a question and provided some points as to why it might not be a red card. I don't think it's right or fair to berate someone for asking a question. The discussion had been good-natured up until this comment and I was listening to the consensus on this thread, including liking some comments. To be honest, you've put me off asking further questions; and, since this forum contains new referees, I don't think you should be discouraging questions.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
But your questioned was based on an opinion, which @Peter Grove highlighted, was flawed.
You mentioned a few times that he dived, giving everyone the assumption you think he definitely dived.
If that is the case - what is your decision and sanction?
Consider that the Fulham player DID foul - are you denying that? Then what happens next is irrelevant - it is a penalty as Jesus went down irrespective of how. The first offence is the foul. If he did stay on his feet, was his balance, and the opportunity, the same or better than the chance he had, or has, via a penalty? If not, then you give the penalty. If it is better, play advantage. The fact he went down makes your decision very easy to give a penalty as his opportunity just became non existent. Why should he stay on his feet if he has been fouled?
If you don't think it was a foul, then your first incident is then the apparent 'dive'. If you have deemed it a no foul, and then a dive, then you act on the dive if you genuinely think he has simulated to gain an advantage and attempt to trick/con you.
Is that better explained?