A&H

Open Age DOGSO?

G

Graham Carter

New Member
Hi guys,
Have read and enjoyed this site for a while and thought I would make an account following an incident on Saturday - I wondered the correct sanction for this offence. Normally I have no problem interpreting this law, but this incident has confused me a little.

A ball was hit 40 yards down the field, ending with a defender trying to gain control of the ball within his penalty area - no other players within 5/6 yards of him. The only players within the area were him, his goalkeeper and a forward, who was a good few paces behind, trying to close him down/put pressure on.
He ends up controlling the ball with his arm near-ish the 6 yard line before his goalkeeper bounced on the ball - no doubt in my mind that it was a handball and penalty. The forward was a good few yards away from the incident and not even challenging for the ball. The question is - is this no card, a yellow ('stopped a promising attack') or a red (DOGSO)?

The Laws of the Game state the following must be considered for DOGSO (I have annotated each point with my thoughts - the one that makes think it is not DOGSO is number 3):
  • distance between the offence and the goal - very close to the goal
  • general direction of the play - heading towards goal
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - forward did not have control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders - 2 defenders including keeper
Do ALL of the above criteria have to be met for DOGSO?
Does any handball committed so close to goal arguably deny a goalscoring opportunity?
Apologies about the long winded post - its difficult to describe an incident! Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks in advance!
 
The Referee Store
I think the question is, had he not used his arm to control it, would the keeper have reasonably been able to get to the ball first? Had the defender not used his arm, what would have happened? If the ball would have run out of play or carry on going to the keeper, I can't seem to find any reason to justify it being DOGSO. Then again, if the attacker were only a couple of yards behind, I certainly think you could be justified giving DOGSO. My gut says PK and caution though.
 
I entirely agree that the goalkeeper's likelihood of getting to the ball is a crucial factor, but under the amended laws a caution for handball has to include some intent to prevent a promising attack:

There are different circumstances when


a player must be cautioned for

unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:

• commits a foul or handles the ball to

interfere with or stop a promising

attack

• handles the ball in an attempt to score

a goal (whether or not the attempt is

successful) or in an unsuccessful

attempt to prevent a goal

If the former were the case, I think you would have to think seriously about DOGSO. If the defender has just controlled the ball with his hand and the striker is not within playing distance/goalkeeper is in the vicinity, it sounds like just a penalty.
 
As you describe it I'd go with the penalty and, at most, a yellow card depending upon the exact nature of the hand ball.
 
OIREF! said:
As you describe it I'd go with the penalty and, at most, a yellow card depending upon the exact nature of the hand ball.
Click to expand...
Difficulty with yellow is the wording in law - if it has stopped a promising attack within the 6 yard box, surely it must be DOGSO?!
 
alexgr said:
I think the question is, had he not used his arm to control it, would the keeper have reasonably been able to get to the ball first? Had the defender not used his arm, what would have happened? If the ball would have run out of play or carry on going to the keeper, I can't seem to find any reason to justify it being DOGSO. Then again, if the attacker were only a couple of yards behind, I certainly think you could be justified giving DOGSO. My gut says PK and caution though.
Click to expand...
Couldn't say for certain that the ball would have ran through to the keeper - I think it would have ended up being in 'no-man's land' - whoever was most switched on/quicker would have got there.
 
All of the criteria should be met to consider DOGSO and as you have rightly pointed out:
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball - forward did not have control of the ball
Therefore i am going with a penalty kick only, don't see this warranting a caution at all.
 
Graham Carter said:
Difficulty with yellow is the wording in law - if it has stopped a promising attack within the 6 yard box, surely it must be DOGSO?!
Click to expand...
No. Just because a ball is inside the goal area doesn't mean that there's DOGSO.

All four considerations MUST be met for DOGSO to be on the table.

In the case as described above, if the ball was a "shot toward goal" and one that the GK would have a "likely" save (thus making it a non-obvious goal), then the recommendation to date has been to caution this for SPA. If it's stopping an obvious goal, then DOGSO-H (more precisely "DOG").

If it's just coming in as a long pass, then I lean strongly toward no card, unless there was a decent chance of the attacker getting there before any other player, in which case, SPA. If it was guaranteed that the attacker was getting there before anyone else, you're now into obvious goal scoring opportunity territory, and that missing clause mentioned above comes into play... "attacker's control or likelihood of control of the ball"...
 
If the ball was hit 40 yards down the pitch, and ended up on the six yard line, you may have been close to the half-way mark when this happened (through no fault of your own). If so, how clear was the offence? Was your position credible to give something here?
 
Penalty no card.
Not dgso nor stopping a promising attack as there was no attack, the opposition player was not attacking the goal, but closing to challenge or tackle.
Simples!
 
AlexF said:
No. Just because a ball is inside the goal area doesn't mean that there's DOGSO.

All four considerations MUST be met for DOGSO to be on the table.

In the case as described above, if the ball was a "shot toward goal" and one that the GK would have a "likely" save (thus making it a non-obvious goal), then the recommendation to date has been to caution this for SPA. If it's stopping an obvious goal, then DOGSO-H (more precisely "DOG").

If it's just coming in as a long pass, then I lean strongly toward no card, unless there was a decent chance of the attacker getting there before any other player, in which case, SPA. If it was guaranteed that the attacker was getting there before anyone else, you're now into obvious goal scoring opportunity territory, and that missing clause mentioned above comes into play... "attacker's control or likelihood of control of the ball"...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. What I mean is, I don't feel a yellow can be justified in that area of the field, as you can't describe an attack as 'promising' with there being a goal scoring opportunity
AlexF said:
No. Just because a ball is inside the goal area doesn't mean that there's DOGSO.

All four considerations MUST be met for DOGSO to be on the table.

In the case as described above, if the ball was a "shot toward goal" and one that the GK would have a "likely" save (thus making it a non-obvious goal), then the recommendation to date has been to caution this for SPA. If it's stopping an obvious goal, then DOGSO-H (more precisely "DOG").

If it's just coming in as a long pass, then I lean strongly toward no card, unless there was a decent chance of the attacker getting there before any other player, in which case, SPA. If it was guaranteed that the attacker was getting there before anyone else, you're now into obvious goal scoring opportunity territory, and that missing clause mentioned above comes into play... "attacker's control or likelihood of control of the ball"...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. I was more making the point that you would struggle to justify a yellow in this situation (particularly to an assessor!) as 'stopping a promising attack' in the 6 yard box would indicate a denial of goalscoring?
 
xPositor said:
If the ball was hit 40 yards down the pitch, and ended up on the six yard line, you may have been close to the half-way mark when this happened (through no fault of your own). If so, how clear was the offence? Was your position credible to give something here?
Click to expand...
The offence was clear to me, I was positioned probably around 25 yards from goal.
 
Graham Carter said:
Difficulty with yellow is the wording in law - if it has stopped a promising attack within the 6 yard box, surely it must be DOGSO?!
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't have to be. We already discussed this in another thread. DOGSO involves the four specific criteria given earlier in this thread and most importantly, requires that there was a more or less overwhelming likelihood that a goal would have been scored if not for the offence. A promising attack just means that there was a good chance the player (or team) involved would have been able to make progress in an attacking direction.

While I suppose you could say that a promising attack in the goal area has a better chance of being DOGSO than one that is further away, it doesn't mean it absolutely must be.
Graham Carter said:
The forward was a good few yards away from the incident and not even challenging for the ball.
Click to expand...
This for me, is the reason that this is not a DOGSO offence (which, to be fair, is the one that you said gave you the most doubt). If the attacker didn't have the ball and didn't even look particularly likely to get it, that pretty much rules out DOGSO.
 
Last edited:
If the player hadn't of handballed it, was it clear that the keeper have got to it before the attacker, or before it went in the goal?
 
QuaverRef said:
If the player hadn't of handballed it, was it clear that the keeper have got to it before the attacker, or before it went in the goal?
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't clear. The ball would have probably ended up between all three players - whoever was quickest would have got there first.
 
Graham Carter said:
Thanks for the reply. What I mean is, I don't feel a yellow can be justified in that area of the field, as you can't describe an attack as 'promising' with there being a goal scoring opportunity

Thanks for the reply. I was more making the point that you would struggle to justify a yellow in this situation (particularly to an assessor!) as 'stopping a promising attack' in the 6 yard box would indicate a denial of goalscoring?
Click to expand...
Not to this observer.

P.S. we're not assessors any more
 
AlexF said:
Right there, that says to me NOT an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.
Click to expand...

Spot on. The fact it wasn't obvious whether the attacker would win the ball nevermind score would suggest that DOGSO wouldn't apply
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top