A&H

Sunday league DOGSO

Peter Grove said:
No, he clearly does not. As others have said, you probably need to replay it on a bigger screen. Even if he did though, getting the ball does not preclude committing a foul when your careless and/or reckless follow-through takes the player's legs out from under him.



Depends on the exact manner of the "taking out" of the player. If it's SFP, as far as I understand, it should still be a red.
Click to expand...
well what i understand if he trying to win the ball in the pa then pen and only a yellow cared any other foul then pen and red
 
The Referee Store
The speculation as to why that the attacker took a heavy touch could cut both ways.

A), which has been mentioned already, is that he knew the foul was coming and took a bad touch

B) is he knew a challenge was coming and, so he did not lose the ball in a fair challenge, knocked it ahead.

Either way, at the point of contact, the ball is at the feet of the keeper.
 
gaygus91 said:
well what i understand if he trying to win the ball in the pa then pen and only a yellow cared any other foul then pen and red
Click to expand...
Just to reiterate and reinforce what @socal lurker said, even if the player was trying to win the ball, it can still be a red card if the offence rises to the level of serious foul play (SFP).

This is as per the law on simultaneous offences. What you would have, would be two offences occurring at the same time: DOGSO and SFP. And as the law states, the referee:

punishes the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time
Click to expand...

Going by the very first criterion (sanction), the referee punishes this as SFP since it carries a red card, rather than DOGSO which on its own, would only require a yellow.
 
Interesting discussion. 🙂

Nothing I can add that hasn't already been submitted.

I'll simply give my own take on it which is:

Yellow for reckless challenge. Defender doesn't play the ball - only the player.
No DOGSO. Attacker is not getting to that before the GK, irrespective of whether or not the challenge caused his heavy touch. 🙂
 
Going to add to this how I've been trained with regards to DOGSO, especially this year:

If I'm going to give that DOGSO AND a penalty, I would only be giving a yellow card, because he is playing at the ball and the penalty restores the goal-scoring opportunity.

In addition to that, I can't see any serious foul play in there, but it is clearly reckless. I think I'd go Yellow and a penalty too.


HOWEVER: As I'm writing that, and before I posted. I just realised that it's outside the penalty area. I think I would be going red for DOGSO there actually.
 
One give away in all this and more a tip (for any new refs) on deciding or helping to decide a DOGSO incident.

If the defender does get something on the ball it would change direction, this occasion the ball has gone in a straight line after the attackers touch.
 
One of my personal pet hates is in action here - the classic "boot the ball away before the tackle comes in so the defender has no chance of getting the ball". For that reason alone I'd probably err on the side of (A) caution here, but I can definitely see the argument for red.

You can certainly tell the defender thinks he's off - pounding the ground after the tackle and a muted fist pump when he sees only yellow!
 
He thinks he is off because he thinks he knows what a foul by the 'last man' means. Player reaction is sometimes a give away but not all the times.
 
one said:
He thinks he is off because he thinks he knows what a foul by the 'last man' means. Player reaction is sometimes a give away but not all the times.
Click to expand...
Or it tells you he was intent on taking player or ball because he recognised his opponent had an obvious opportunity to score a goal.
Along with his team mate who was trying to say he was covering, albeit from about 10 yards behind 🤣
Can spin the reaction either way.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: one
JamesL said:
Or it tells you he was intent on taking player or ball because he recognised his opponent had an obvious opportunity to score a goal.
Click to expand...
Except his intent doesn't change the fact that the attacker wasn't regaining possession of the ball ;)
 
After many VAR looks at this, I say well done to the on pitch referee in going with yellow. 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top