The Ref Stop

Was it DOGSO or not?

Kref

Well-Known Member
Below is a bad drawing of the situation. Red mark is where the tackle took place. And green mark is where the second to last man was. Rest of the opposition was on the other half of the pitch.
1663864810407.png

This situation happened last Saturday. For me I judged it as a foul and applied a DFK. However if this was DOGSO then a red card should have been awarded to the defending player as it was outside the box. However if we look at the second picture below.

1663864975164.png

First we we consider the first D for the number of defenders there was only one other (GK) so that condition has been meet, 1/4. Looking at the second D, distance to the goal, had the foul not been commited where it was, was the striker close enough to the goal would he have score. No he was just at the halfway line. So that is still 1/4. The attacker was dribbling/running with the ball at the time. So that is the third condition met, 2/4. And the fourth D, direction of play, the attacker was going straight towards the goal, so that D is met meaning 3/4. Which means out of the 4 D 3 have been meet.

However from my decision I judged it to be a non-dogso however after looking at it with more than 5-10 seconds I have deemed it to potentially have been DOGSO, although distance from the goal is a fit iffy.

Anyone provide some insight as I am not 100% sure. Although I am glad I did not do DOGSO in the match as I would have gotten chastied very much.


Edit: Thanks @Anubis for pointing out the DOGSO definition at the time was inaccurate. Below is the actual definition for DOGSO off IFAB:

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs
(except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).

A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee’s permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.

The following must be considered:

  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders


Even after looking at this definition, I still wouldn't have given it as DOGSO during the match. Mainly due to the first point of distance between the offence and the goal
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
Also have to take into account skill level etc but certainly doesn’t appear DOGSO from that location
 
Also have to take into account skill level etc but certainly doesn’t appear DOGSO from that location
Yeah thats what I determined during the match. And in regards to skill level I don't think they were skillful enough as this was Division 4 OA (Out of 4 divsions). Thanks for your insight.
 
With DOGSO one of the best peices advice I got given was “is it DOGSO right NOW?” Meaning where the foul is. From your drawing, unless the keeper is in absolutely no man’s land, it’s more a promising attack in my opinion due to distance. The green defender may also get back in time.

Players ALWAYS think they’re gonna score, they back themselves to the hill in the 93rd minute even if they havnt hit a barn door since your first whistle. In my experience your gut will immediately scream DOGSO, if it is of course.

interesting wording in your slide tho, I’ve always understood DOGSO criteria as DDDC, defenders, distance, direction, control (of ball), I mean it’s nearly the same but different wording.
 
I referee a player (golden boot winning striker) who is also a ref, he always plays in good spirits.
Every time he gets fouled, anywhere on the field it's a laughing appeal for dogso.
 
Below is a bad drawing of the situation. Red mark is where the tackle took place. And green mark is where the second to last man was. Rest of the opposition was on the other half of the pitch.
View attachment 5966

This situation happened last Saturday. For me I judged it as a foul and applied a DFK. However if this was DOGSO then a red card should have been awarded to the defending player as it was outside the box. However if we look at the second picture below.

View attachment 5967

First we we consider the first D for the number of defenders there was only one other (GK) so that condition has been meet, 1/4. Looking at the second D, distance to the goal, had the foul not been commited where it was, was the striker close enough to the goal would he have score. No he was just at the halfway line. So that is still 1/4. The attacker was dribbling/running with the ball at the time. So that is the third condition met, 2/4. And the fourth D, direction of play, the attacker was going straight towards the goal, so that D is met meaning 3/4. Which means out of the 4 D 3 have been meet.

However from my decision I judged it to be a non-dogso however after looking at it with more than 5-10 seconds I have deemed it to potentially have been DOGSO, although distance from the goal is a fit iffy.
Anyone provide some insight as I am not 100% sure. Although I am glad I did not do DOGSO in the match as I would have gotten chastied very much.


sorry but your bullet point sheet is not the same DOGSO referred to in law.

if you revisit law 12, you will find the correct conditions of dogso.
 
Below is a bad drawing of the situation. Red mark is where the tackle took place. And green mark is where the second to last man was. Rest of the opposition was on the other half of the pitch.
View attachment 5966

This situation happened last Saturday. For me I judged it as a foul and applied a DFK. However if this was DOGSO then a red card should have been awarded to the defending player as it was outside the box. However if we look at the second picture below.

View attachment 5967

First we we consider the first D for the number of defenders there was only one other (GK) so that condition has been meet, 1/4. Looking at the second D, distance to the goal, had the foul not been commited where it was, was the striker close enough to the goal would he have score. No he was just at the halfway line. So that is still 1/4. The attacker was dribbling/running with the ball at the time. So that is the third condition met, 2/4. And the fourth D, direction of play, the attacker was going straight towards the goal, so that D is met meaning 3/4. Which means out of the 4 D 3 have been meet.

However from my decision I judged it to be a non-dogso however after looking at it with more than 5-10 seconds I have deemed it to potentially have been DOGSO, although distance from the goal is a fit iffy.

Anyone provide some insight as I am not 100% sure. Although I am glad I did not do DOGSO in the match as I would have gotten chastied very much.
The final bullet point is the indicator that the list is out of date - the move away from "heading for goal" was removed several seasons ago because it was clearly in need of review.
 
The final bullet point is the indicator that the list is out of date - the move away from "heading for goal" was removed several seasons ago because it was clearly in need of review.

There has also never been sny reference to, " one defender usually the gk"


the whole list is inaccurate and could be confusing for anybody considering the list as law
 
Back
Top