Junior/Youth DOGSO-H - Youth 11v11 tournament

[Mooseybaby]

Son was playing in an 11-a-side youth tournament at the weekend and his U14s team won!

Tournament was played in mostly good spirit, official referees with CARs during the group stages and a team of 3 appointed for the finals. General standard of refereeing I saw throughout tournament was good, however there was one incident which caused some debate on the sidelines.

U14s - Blue team defending/Orange attacking. Blue fail to clear ball from corner, defenders still on goal line, orange hits a shot which is heading for the top corner with the keeper well beaten. One of the blue defenders still rooted to the goal line sticks out hand full stretch and makes a save most keepers would be proud of. The clearest case of DOGSO-H you will ever see!

Referee points to the spot and calls over defender, who trudges over very slowly, possibly because he knows what's about to follow. After a brief chat, referee shows him a yellow card! A few of the parents who know I am a registered referee, turn to me and say "shouldn't that be red?".

Obviously being there "off-duty" as parent, I don't know what the referees discussed pre-tournament regarding potential discipline issues etc and didn't get the opportunity to speak to the referee as to his thinking behind the decision not to show a red card. Unfortunately fate would have it that the decision was to have more serious consequences a few minutes later, when the same blue defender went in for a 50/50 with an orange attacker on the edge of the penalty area. Players collide with a clash of legs and orange player lets out an ear splitting scream. Referee stopped the game immediately, coaches called on and ref raced off to grab the on-site paramedics. Heard last night, orange player had broken his tibia which requires operating on! Sour note on what otherwise was a great weekend.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Well, yep, tournament or not, it's a red card. And this age is well past the age where you need to start ensuring mandatory cards are applied.

But damn......that's crazy. Referee fails to apply the LOTG and send off a player for a mandatory red card and shortly after that player breaks somebody's leg. Not saying the referee's responsible for the leg break, but had the ref done his job and applied the laws, there's a player who wouldn't have had to go into surgery for a serious injury.

Definitely food for thought for all of us.

And if the tournament organisers have, for whatever reason, said 'don't send players off for these things' then that's completely stupid. And highlights the outcome of such policies.

Congrats to your son thought!!

 

[2nd String Ref]

Red.
At 14 years old they know exactly what they're doing and stopping a goal-bound shot is cheating the other team, regardless of whether they get a penalty or not.
I can see the argument in showing some leniency for other offences (from red to yellow etc.) for juniors. If this had been a case of hands in unnatural position and it hitting him on the goal line, then yes, a yellow is justified. but not for this sort of offence.

 

[Matthew]

100% red. Sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing.

Maybe there was some kind of directive from the organisers? I simply cannot think of any other reason why this wouldn't be a red card.

 

[GraemeS]

100% red. Sounds like he knew exactly what he was doing.

Maybe there was some kind of directive from the organisers? I simply cannot think of any other reason why this wouldn't be a red card.

That was my thought exactly. It puts the referee in a difficult position, but if he's been specifically briefed that DOGSO and DOGSO-H should only be cautions for this tournament, that might make sense.

The other possibility I suppose is that it could be a referee not fully understanding the new DOGSO laws? Maybe he thought that any DOGSO offence that resulted in a penalty is now only a yellow?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Or he's one of those 'they're just kids' idiots.

Referee. I mean referee.

wait, no I don't.

 

[Matthew]

That was my thought exactly. It puts the referee in a difficult position, but if he's been specifically briefed that DOGSO and DOGSO-H should only be cautions for this tournament, that might make sense.

The other possibility I suppose is that it could be a referee not fully understanding the new DOGSO laws? Maybe he thought that any DOGSO offence that resulted in a penalty is now only a yellow?

Equally possible. I know from a discussion that I had with a couple of other referees a few weeks back that there has been some confusion with this. Am I right in thinking that there has to be a 'genuine attempt to play the ball' for it not to be a red?

 

[GraemeS]

Equally possible. I know from a discussion that I had with a couple of other referees a few weeks back that there has been some confusion with this. Am I right in thinking that there has to be a 'genuine attempt to play the ball' for it not to be a red?

Exactly. And I believe the laws even explicitly list handball alongside things such as pushing and pulling that can never be considered a genuine attempt to play the ball.

 

[Matthew]

Exactly. And I believe the laws even explicitly list handball alongside things such as pushing and pulling that can never be considered a genuine attempt to play the ball.

Just had a look and they do, DOGSO-H will be a red card wherever it takes place under Law 12.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Equally possible. I know from a discussion that I had with a couple of other referees a few weeks back that there has been some confusion with this. Am I right in thinking that there has to be a 'genuine attempt to play the ball' for it not to be a red?

Exactly. And I believe the laws even explicitly list handball alongside things such as pushing and pulling that can never be considered a genuine attempt to play the ball.

P87
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs

So, DOGSO-H is still a red. There's no determination over 'intentional-deliberate' versus 'didn't-really-mean-it-deliberate'. No change to DOGSO-H at all.

If this had been a case of hands in unnatural position and it hitting him on the goal line, then yes, a yellow is justified..

No, it's not. Mandatory laws are mandatory.

 

[Tino Best]

Red card, no arguments. 14 way old enough to know better.

 

[ref craig]

On occasion as this incident shows laws of game always take priority over a competition rules

 

[Paul March]

Was it an FA affiliated tournament.

I will only ref on affiliated/sanctioned games. If the organisers can pick and choose the laws- no thanks

 

[xPositor]

I can't believe the tournament organisers would have got their CFA sanction for the event if they had specified this in their competition rules. Tournaments within our CFA, for a few years now, have been no IDFK's, blue cards/sin bin rather than yellow cards, but all red card offences remain unchanged. The only qualification around red cards is whether the player is dismissed from that particular match only, or from the tournament overall. The tweaks we had to make to my club's competition rules were in dialogue with the CFA, aiming at consistency (which I'm sure we've all witnessed a complete lack of at tournaments we've refereed at). Those rules are then published in the tournament programme, so you can't get the tournament organiser briefing the referees on the day differently to what all the teams understand should happen. Believe me, an offended against team would be over to the organisers like a shot if they felt hard done by when a referee does not enforce a mandatory sanction that impacts the outcome of the game (I've also had to deal with teams arguing over decisions that would have been in the opinion of the referee, but I don't think that could be argued for this case).

I'm more inclined to believe in this instance it was either the referee coming from a background of not liking to dismiss in youth matches, or confused with the DOGSO changes.

 

[WilliamD]

Fiver says it's new dogso law confusion. Shame you didn't get to speak to the ref after.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Was it an FA affiliated tournament. I will only ref on affiliated/sanctioned games. If the organisers can pick and choose the laws- no thanks

Yeap, organisers are a well known company who run tournaments throughout UK and sanctioned by national FA. All referees are registered.

 

[OIREF!]

Regardless of the ages I think most people would reasonably (and correctly) expect a red card in this scenario.

 

[lincs22]

Regardless of what the match is - it has to be a RC.

However, in tournaments the level of punishments for items like this can be left to the organisers. So they could say that the punishment is what has been served (ie no further match ban).

 

[Tino Best]

the laws are there for a reason. Not giving a red card in this tournament and then the player getting one in the league for the same offence means the ref might get more abuse as the player team mates and parents all say well he didnt get sent off for that last month

 

[Peter Grove]

If this had been a case of hands in unnatural position and it hitting him on the goal line, then yes, a yellow is justified.

No, it's not. If you're following the Laws of the Game, you only have two choices here: 1. Deliberate handling offence and red card for denying a goal or 2. Not deliberate handling, no offence, play on.