verbally distracting and opponent in the box.

[pankaye]

Seen an interesting discussion on Facebook

What's the correct decision if a player verbally distracts an attacking opponent during play inside the box,

Attacker 1 on 1 with the keeper and chasing back defender shouts "AHHH" as he takes the shot? Attacker misses the goal as a consequence.

 

[dylanbailey4444]

Seen an interesting discussion on Facebook

What's the correct decision if a player verbally distracts an attacking opponent during play inside the box,

Attacker 1 on 1 with the keeper and chasing back defender shouts "AHHH" as he takes the shot? Attacker misses the goal as a consequence.

Caution and indirect free kick. It’s a mandatory caution, too.

 

[bester]

Red card if DOGSO considerations are met

 

[ARF]

Caution and indirect free kick. It’s a mandatory caution, too.

1 on 1 with the keeper? Sounds like DOGSO to me...

 

[socal lurker]

The key point is it is either USB and a caution, or it is nothing. It can NEVER be a FK without a caution (or send off if it meets DOGSO).

 

[one]

Attacker misses the goal as a consequence.

This has to be DOGSO as per the OP explanation. Red card and IFK form where the offending defender was.

Note this is a perfect example of two offences at the same time, USB and DOGSO. The more serious one which is DOGSO is punished.

 

[NOVARef]

This is such a great post and I've been talking to my son about it. He quickly said YC and IDFK and then I asked, what about DOGSO and he said..."DOGSO? The defender didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity? The attacker took the shot." And I didn't have much to say. How would you respond? Normally, when we encounter DOGSO, it's foul that brings down the attacker and literally denies the attacker the opportunity. Thoughts?

 

[santa sangria]

This is such a great post and I've been talking to my son about it. He quickly said YC and IDFK and then I asked, what about DOGSO and he said..."DOGSO? The defender didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity? The attacker took the shot." And I didn't have much to say. How would you respond? Normally, when we encounter DOGSO, it's foul that brings down the attacker and literally denies the attacker the opportunity. Thoughts?

Was there an advantage?

 

[NOVARef]

Was there an advantage?

If the attacker scored, you would play advantage and allow the goal and you would still give YC for USB, correct? If the attacker didn't score (as in this case), no advantage materialized, so you bring it back and give the IDFK, but that leads to the question...was an opportunity denied? Thanks.

 

[ARF]

that leads to the question...was an opportunity denied? Thanks.

OP states shot was missed as a consequence, so yes. If you decide there was no advantage and pull it back, you are saying precisely that the offence has denied the OGSO.

 

[santa sangria]

If the attacker scored, you would play advantage and allow the goal and you would still give YC for USB, correct? If the attacker didn't score (as in this case), no advantage materialized, so you bring it back and give the IDFK, but that leads to the question...was an opportunity denied? Thanks.

It’s all about timing and selling the decision. And you don’t want to be seen to be giving two bites of the cherry.

No advantage. Red card. Sell it hard, strong… and then hope that players have noticed you didn’t point to the spot. In the fall out, one hand up “guys, it’s indirect, not a pen.” … it’s a nightmare and will take minutes to calm down and sell the restart. Would love to see it!

 

[JamesL]

Also worth pointing out that the restart would be taken from where the offender was stood when the committed the offence. Just to add to the sales patter

 

[santa sangria]

Also worth pointing out that the restart would be taken from where the offender was stood when the committed the offence. Just to add to the sales patter

Did the OP say where the defender was?

 

[bester]

Did the OP say where the defender was?

Watched a Step 5 (8 promotions from Premier League) game where the goalkeeper shouted OFFINABUS towards the assistant from within his own penalty area, ball was around half way.
Referee knew the restart related to the offenders position but unfortunately gave a penalty!
Told the assistant but he wasn't interested. Nice 3 week rest for the team

 

[markref]

I have had this happen, when a player shouted and put off a player about to roll the ball in from right in front of the goal. There was no one in front of him, so a goal was almost certain without the shout. As suggested, I stopped play quickly and sent the offender off, but it caused issues because the free kick was taken from the 6 yard line with defenders standing on the goal line (both players were inside the goal area) when players thought it should be a penalty. The resulting free kick was missed and the offending team won the semi-final 1-0.

I confirmed the dismissal with IFAB and received the following reply

“Dear Mark
Thank you for your e mail.
You were right to dismiss the player as he was guilty of an offence punishable by a free kick which is the requirement of Law ; as his offence was not an attempt to play the ball he was guilty of a red card DOGSO offence

Best wishes
David
David Elleray”

 

[JamesL]

I have had this happen, when a player shouted and put off a player about to roll the ball in from right in front of the goal. There was no one in front of him, so a goal was almost certain without the shout. As suggested, I stopped play quickly and sent the offender off, but it caused issues because the free kick was taken from the 6 yard line with defenders standing on the goal line (both players were inside the goal area) when players thought it should be a penalty. The resulting free kick was missed and the offending team won the semi-final 1-0.

I confirmed the dismissal with IFAB and received the following reply

“Dear Mark
Thank you for your e mail.
You were right to dismiss the player as he was guilty of an offence punishable by a free kick which is the requirement of Law ; as his offence was not an attempt to play the ball he was guilty of a red card DOGSO offence

Best wishes
David
David Elleray”

Wow! The rationale in that response is wild. Just to be clear its nothing to do with an attempt for the ball. It is still a red card because a penalty is not awarded. Attempt/challenge for the ball is irrelevant in this case..

 

[lincs22]

Wow! The rationale in that response is wild. Just to be clear its nothing to do with an attempt for the ball. It is still a red card because a penalty is not awarded. Attempt/challenge for the ball is irrelevant in this case..

But when did David Elleray apply law correct? Has anybody watched in referee in old matches- The law according to Mr Elleray, was what was applied

 

[one]

At least he is not sitting one the fence or saying apply the spirit of the laws. I give him credit for that

 

[santa sangria]

Wow! The rationale in that response is wild. Just to be clear its nothing to do with an attempt for the ball. It is still a red card because a penalty is not awarded. Attempt/challenge for the ball is irrelevant in this case..

We don’t know the question to Dave though - he could have been asked “is it DOGSO downgrade…” or that might have been implied

 

[one]

he could have been asked “is it DOGSO downgrade…” or that might have been implied

And the correct answer to that would have been, no because the penalty kick is not awarded.

Unless the scenario expanded to him was a DFK offence (which verbal offences aren't), attempt to play the ball is irrelevant.