Search results

This is why I thought it was a second yellow. Referee must have thought it was not DOGSO.

My understanding here ... and please do correct me if I am wrong ... is that DOGSO + penalty = caution. Am I wrong?

Trying to be a better referee. Grass roots, youth. No defenders around. Challenge was careless, IMO. I think this ... "So basically, if the player was (for want of a better phrase) through on goal with a very clear chance to score and no other defenders to try and beat, then the defender...

As it happens, I thought it was DOGSO even if it was an accident. I can only presume the referee did not think it was DOGSO. Not that this is the answer I was after. I think the answer is: referee saw the challenge as careless and not DOGSO and not reckless, so no yellow card.

Oooops. Yesterday.

Thank you. This is similar to another reply, which I think is the answer I was after. If the referee saw the challenge as careless and not DOGSO and not reckless - which I can see being the case as it was careless and not DOGSO and not reckless, imo - then I get why he did not produce a second...

Thank you. This could be the answer I was after. The challenge was careless. If careless, yellow card not warranted. I get that. So the only reason player-from-team-A would receive a card was if DOGSO; have I got that correct?

Not reckless, no. DOGSO, in my view, yes. Player-from-team-B was running onto the ball (from the throw), in the area, with just the 'keeper in his way.

Hi. Game in FA Youth Cup second preliminary round on 2025-09-30. Player-from-team-A on a yellow card. Quick throw puts player-from-team-B in behind player-from-team-A. Player-from-team-A brings down player-from-team-B in the - team-A's - penalty area. Player-from-team-A was trying to...