A&H

No DOGSO yellow card

R

Redref34

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
Hi all

Observed today. Red team player gets to goal line and cuts along into area. Skips past blue player and player sticks a leg out to bring him down. Penalty no arguments. Ball runs through to keeper. I thought no DOGSO because, chance of player not reaching ball before the goalkeeper got it and other defenders around, albeit not in the way, but enough for me to go no DOGSO.

Anyway, I was observed so spoke after the game. Observer said that he wouldn’t have argued if I had sent him off for DOGSO. Then said but you didn’t even yellow card him.

Am I right in saying that if I had decided it was not DOGSO the only thing I could yellow card him for is a) reckless or b) stopping a promising attack of which I didn’t think it was that either because of the keeper getting the ball? Or should I have yellow carded for stopping promising attack?
 
A&H International
Redref34 said:
Hi all

Observed today. Red team player gets to goal line and cuts along into area. Skips past blue player and player sticks a leg out to bring him down. Penalty no arguments. Ball runs through to keeper. I thought no DOGSO because, chance of player not reaching ball before the goalkeeper got it and other defenders around, albeit not in the way, but enough for me to go no DOGSO.

Anyway, I was observed so spoke after the game. Observer said that he wouldn’t have argued if I had sent him off for DOGSO. Then said but you didn’t even yellow card him.

Am I right in saying that if I had decided it was not DOGSO the only thing I could yellow card him for is a) reckless or b) stopping a promising attack of which I didn’t think it was that either because of the keeper getting the ball? Or should I have yellow carded for stopping promising attack?
Click to expand...

The same principle applies to SPA as to DOGSO in that if a penalty is awarded and it's an attempt/challenge for the ball then the sanction is downgraded i.e. yellow > no sanction.

If any other offence, e.g. reckless then that is a more serious offence and is sanctioned as per law.
 
If it would have been DOGSO then a caution is mandatory. That is, if you felt it would have denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but was an attempt to play the ball, that's the only wiggle room to avoid giving a red card, but if this condition is met you must give a caution.
 
You need to be prepared for the observer, he may have easily backed your decision if you articulate why you went with no card.
If he's talking about DOGSO then the likelihood he thinks it wasn't at least SPA is very low.
Also your own discussion about why it wasn't DOGSO also sounds like it would be at least SPA

Think about the key match incidents that he's likely to reference and be prepared to quote law.

No DOGSO as you considered likelihood of controling the ball to be in doubt etc.

Then you would say it was SPA but as you awarded a penalty and it was an attempt to play the ball then you downgraded the SPA to no caution.
 
So if there was no attempt to play the ball but it wasn’t considered DOGSO that’s not a mandatory caution?
 
Redref34 said:
So if there was no attempt to play the ball but it wasn’t considered DOGSO that’s not a mandatory caution?
Click to expand...
When a penalty is awarded and there is no DOGSO, you can still caution if the foul is reckless or shows a lack of respect for the game. But it is not mandatory for 'no attempt to play the ball'.
 
Yes - so I think his point was on his head it was DOGSO therefore red if I thought he didn’t make a genuine attempt for ball or yellow if o thought he did. My point is I didn’t think it was DOGSO or reckless therefore no card
 
DDDC

Direction, Defenders, Distance and Control.

So from a seminar I was at recently, for it to be DOGSO it needs to tick all of them.

So distance, was probably close as he was in the box, if he skipped past the defender direction was probably towards goal, and it sounds like he was in control of the ball. So your argument would need to be a covering defender.

Basically if he was one-on-one with the GK and he got tripped after beating someone. It will be a hard sell.
 
OldNavyRef said:
DDDC

Direction, Defenders, Distance and Control.

So from a seminar I was at recently, for it to be DOGSO it needs to tick all of them.

So distance, was probably close as he was in the box, if he skipped past the defender direction was probably towards goal, and it sounds like he was in control of the ball. So your argument would need to be a covering defender.

Basically if he was one-on-one with the GK and he got tripped after beating someone. It will be a hard sell.
Click to expand...
From their explanation it sounds like control is actually the doubt as they had knocked it past the defender and it seemed likely that the keeper would have collected the ball before the player got to it.


In summary for the OP, be careful of using the wording 'attempt to play the ball'. This was changed to 'challenge for the ball' as upper body contact can be a challenge for the ball.
Assuming it isn't SFP or Reckless that you're cautioning for...
The first consideration should be 'is it DOGSO'. If it is, then it's a caution as you're awarding a penalty. If it isn't then the second consideration is 'is it Stopping a promising attack, or SPA'. If it is, then you because you have awarded a penalty you do not need to issue a caution.
When queried by the observer, be prepared to explain why using law.
'I didn't think it would be DOGSO because I don't think the player still had control of the ball, I felt the goalkeeper would likely have beaten him to it regardless. I did consider it to be worthy of stopping a promising attack due to the proximity to goal and the small element of doubt as to whether he may have beaten the goalkeeper to the ball, however because I awarded the penalty kick and it was a challenge for the ball, I didn't need to issue a card for SPA.'
 
RefereeX said:
In summary for the OP, be careful of using the wording 'attempt to play the ball'. This was changed to 'challenge for the ball' as upper body contact can be a challenge for the ball.
Click to expand...
It was changed to "or a challenge for the ball".

Attempt to play is still there in the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top