The Ref Stop

Continuation holding and DOGSO

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

bester

bester

RefChat Addict
Inspired by the Brentford thread

A holding offence starts outside the penalty area it would be DOGSO if play is stopped for a free kick, by the time they're inside the area the holding is continuing but it's no longer DOGSO.
Perhaps due to the hold delaying them sufficiently, or a heavy touch while being held.

Can we give a red card, and a penalty?
 
The Ref Stop
I think so. It’s not separate fouls, but rather holding is a continuing foul. The foul was DOGSO so send off and cont8nued into PA so PK.
 
Footballing actions are downgraded to a yellow card+penalty. Holding is not a footballing action, thus if a dogso offense- PK+RC.
 
The restart has to be a penalty kick because by the time play is stopped the holding has continued into the penalty area.
My view is that to penalise DOGSO from a holding offence there only needs to be an OGSO at any moment during the holding, not necessarily at the time play is stopped.
Therefore in this scenario it should be correct to send off the defender.
 
Excellent question. Given holding is not a footballing action and does not attempt to play the ball, any alternate interpretation to avoid triple punishment should not apply.

I realise that triple punishment downgrade was not designed for this scenario.
 
one said:
Excellent question. Given holding is not a footballing action and does not attempt to play the ball, any alternate interpretation to avoid triple punishment should not apply.

I realise that triple punishment downgrade was not designed for this scenario.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the OP was about DOGSO yellow. But about whether it could be a PK and DOGSO if the OGSO was no longer there once the hold continued into the PA. One could argue that it has to be DOGSO/RED/DFK or PK with no card as the OGSO was gone. As above, I think that argument is wrong.
 
socal lurker said:
I don’t think the OP was about DOGSO yellow. But about whether it could be a PK and DOGSO if the OGSO was no longer there once the hold continued into the PA. One could argue that it has to be DOGSO/RED/DFK or PK with no card as the OGSO was gone. As above, I think that argument is wrong.
Click to expand...
I was aware of the intent of the OP 😊. My argument is to go for the interpretation that gives the biggest punishment. I don't think PK with no red is strictly wrong as the concept of "continuing foul" or "anytime during a foul" doesn't exist in law. It is an interpretation. One could argue the outcome of holding going from outside to inside of PA is the result of playing advantage rather than one continuing foul.
 
My interpretation would be no, we can't do both. It's one offence, so we can choose when to penalise it, but we can't give the best of both worlds. Interesting point though. One that would come down to the spirit of the laws and how you interpret that. My interpretation is that if it were 2 separate fouls, they would either have FK red card or PK caution. Why should only one continuous foul result in a harsher punishment?
 
RefereeX said:
Why should only one continuous foul result in a harsher punishment?
Click to expand...
Though I disagreed with calling it a continuous foul and agree it is one foul, I believe I answered that question. If it was an attempt to play the ball I would give the defenders the benefit of interpretation. But in the case of a holding offence the attackers get the best of both worlds. This approach has precedent in law.
 
IFAB response

"Good morning


Thank you for your e mail and question.

The outcomes could be:

Penalise the ‘start’ of the offence = free kick and red card for DOGSO
Play advantage for start of the offence = penalty kick and caution (YC)*
 
  • Angry
Reactions: one
bester said:
IFAB response

"Good morning


Thank you for your e mail and question.

The outcomes could be:

Penalise the ‘start’ of the offence = free kick and red card for DOGSO
Play advantage for start of the offence = penalty kick and caution (YC)*
Click to expand...
I'm none the wiser.
 
You can't give a red and a penalty is what I got from it but they're saying you can choose either of those options 🤷.
 
bester said:
they're saying you can choose either of those options 🤷.
Click to expand...
Choosing option 1 is against law 12.

If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.
Click to expand...

"must" does not equal "may".
 
My follow-on question. Have to lead the horse to water to get a clear(er) answer from them

"Law 12 says if holding continues into the penalty area then the offence MUST be penalised with a penalty kick.

Unless you've whistled before they get in to the penalty area I don't see how the second outcome is an option"

Reply

"We did not say they are ‘options’, we said they are ‘outcomes’ as it may be that the holding starts a long way from the penalty area and the referee penalises before the players reach the penalty area."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: one
bester said:
My follow-on question. Have to lead the horse to water to get a clear(er) answer from them

"Law 12 says if holding continues into the penalty area then the offence MUST be penalised with a penalty kick.

Unless you've whistled before they get in to the penalty area I don't see how the second outcome is an option"

Reply

"We did not say they are ‘options’, we said they are ‘outcomes’ as it may be that the holding starts a long way from the penalty area and the referee penalises before the players reach the penalty area."
Click to expand...

I have mentioned this a few times before. I stopped emailing IFAB because most of my questions are the grey areas of the laws and I find most of their answers not very useful (for me).

Out of interest, can you share the text to your initial email asking the question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top