A&H

Penalty and red card?

However, excluding the DOGSO YC clause inside the PA; any CRUEF offence punishable by a direct free kick is eligible for DOGSO or SPA
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - the CRUEF criteria only apply to 'physical contact type' fouls, whereas any offence punishable by a free kick can be a DOGSO offence.
 
The Referee Store
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - the CRUEF criteria only apply to 'physical contact type' fouls, whereas any offence punishable by a free kick can be a DOGSO offence.
Technically not correct where 'attempting to' is used for the offence, you can use CRUEF but no contact is made.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - the CRUEF criteria only apply to 'physical contact type' fouls, whereas any offence punishable by a free kick can be a DOGSO offence.
I was indicating that it's not just;
cynical trips by the fat centre back who can't catch the speedy forward
which qualify for DOGSO. Any careless, reckless or excessive force foul tackle is eligible for DOGSO
Thinking about it, theoretically so are other offences, like distraction and PIADM (even though the restart would be IDFK)
 
I was indicating that it's not just;

which qualify for DOGSO. Any careless, reckless or excessive force foul tackle is eligible for DOGSO
Thinking about it, theoretically so are other offences, like distraction and PIADM (even though the restart would be IDFK)

Interesting point that. If a striker is played in on goal and running onto a through ball, then a defender shouts 'Leave it!' to distract an opponent, the striker stops and the keeper collects the ball .... DOGSO?
 
Interesting point that. If a striker is played in on goal and running onto a through ball, then a defender shouts 'Leave it!' to distract an opponent, the striker stops and the keeper collects the ball .... DOGSO?
Yes, there have been previous discussions on the forum regarding this
 
I was indicating that it's not just;

which qualify for DOGSO. Any careless, reckless or excessive force foul tackle is eligible for DOGSO
Thinking about it, theoretically so are other offences, like distraction and PIADM (even though the restart would be IDFK)
Again, not sure why you keep putting the emphasis on CRUEF fouls (which are DFK offences) and why you would have to think about it when the law is perfectly clear (and not just in some theoretical kind of way) that DOGSO is applicable to ANY "offence punishable by a free kick."
 
Technically not correct where 'attempting to' is used for the offence, you can use CRUEF but no contact is made.
That's why I said 'physical contact type fouls' and put it in inverted commas - precisely to indicate that it was not restricted to only those fouls where actual contact occurs, but also to those where an attempt at physical contact occurs but is not achieved. I just didn't want to have to go through the whole rigamarole of having to spell it out in totally exhausting detail as I assumed we were among people who understood the nuances of language.

I had originally thought of putting 'physical contact fouls (including those where contact is attempted)' but I thought that was a bit too long-winded and if I put 'physical contact type fouls' that would be sufficient to indicate that I was including attempted contact. Obviously, I was mistaken.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one
That's why I said 'physical contact type fouls' and put it in inverted commas - precisely to indicate that it was not restricted to only those fouls where actual contact occurs, but also to those where an attempt at physical contact occurs but is not achieved. I just didn't want to have to go through the whole rigamarole of having to spell it out in totally exhausting detail as I assumed we were among people who understood the nuances of language.

I had originally thought of putting 'physical contact fouls (including those where contact is attempted)' but I thought that was a bit too long-winded and if I put 'physical contact type fouls' that would be sufficient to indicate that I was including attempted contact. Obviously, I was mistaken.
I did think it was unlike you to overlook something like that. Good to know you didn't :)
 
Again, not sure why you keep putting the emphasis on CRUEF fouls (which are DFK offences) and why you would have to think about it when the law is perfectly clear (and not just in some theoretical kind of way) that DOGSO is applicable to ANY "offence punishable by a free kick."
Just keeping you in a job!
 
Is it that tricky though, thinking about it?

Its rare to see SFP or VC in the penalty area, handballs preventing a goal are obviously red every time and apart from holding to prevent an attacker scoring - again quite rare - most other challenges can be 'sold' as an attempt for the ball can't they?
The problem we have is whether the challenge was a genuine attempt or just making it look like to try to avoid the red card - this is the hard bit as a ref as we are making ANOTHER judgement we did not have to before.
 
Back
Top