Open Age Deciding on a SPA offence.

[RobOda]

Had a situation today, two scenarios;

Scenario one:

Long ball over the top, defender holds attacker out wide on the halfway line, it was blatant, he never had the pace to beat the lad IMO. There was another defender in line more centrally, who I felt would have easily came across to make a challenge and was definitely in a position to do so body-wise, so I decided that it was a Caution, Holding, Stopping a Promising attack. Without that defender I think it would be a brave red for DOSGO, going by the videos posted here before, but what do you think on that?

Scenario two:

Ball down the flank, tricky winger is flying down the wing and is being shadowed all the way by the fullback. It's a promising situation, they're on the counter, though in my eyes he still has the defender to beat. The defender forces him wide of the penalty area and then in a mistimed careless tackle, trips him over.

I decided no sanction, my justification being he had gone too wide, was still running rather straight (i.e. to the goal line), all the defenders were back and in the penalty area ready to defend/cover and I felt that he had gone basically beyond the point we could it a promising attacking situation.

His team did ask why it wasn't a caution, again I thought fair question to ask. Had he been tripped earlier at any point during that run I think I'd have gone with a caution, but what do you guys think? Am I right to consider that a player going too wide/defenders coming back can negate a promising situation, or do I need to consider more/other factors?

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

For me its an issue of game management vs letter of the law. From your description, I'd go no caution due to the angle etc. BUT if the game/your previous decisions suggest a yellow is best for management, maybe consider a caution?

 

[Nij]

Had a situation today, two scenarios;

Scenario one:

Long ball over the top, defender holds attacker out wide on the halfway line, it was blatant, he never had the pace to beat the lad IMO. There was another defender in line more centrally, who I felt would have easily came across to make a challenge and was definitely in a position to do so body-wise, so I decided that it was a Caution, Holding, Stopping a Promising attack. Without that defender I think it would be a brave red for DOSGO, going by the videos posted here before, but what do you think on that?

Scenario two:

Ball down the flank, tricky winger is flying down the wing and is being shadowed all the way by the fullback. It's a promising situation, they're on the counter, though in my eyes he still has the defender to beat. The defender forces him wide of the penalty area and then in a mistimed careless tackle, trips him over.

I decided no sanction, my justification being he had gone too wide, was still running rather straight (i.e. to the goal line), all the defenders were back and in the penalty area ready to defend/cover and I felt that he had gone basically beyond the point we could it a promising attacking situation.

His team did ask why it wasn't a caution, again I thought fair question to ask. Had he been tripped earlier at any point during that run I think I'd have gone with a caution, but what do you guys think? Am I right to consider that a player going too wide/defenders coming back can negate a promising situation, or do I need to consider more/other factors?

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Generally agree with your thoughts on both these situations.

1. Definitely a promising attack, and if the holding stops it, bang to rights on a caution for SPA, and DFK as a physical offence.
If that was the only defender, I would need a lot more to call it DOGSO, but my patience for any disagreement with the decision would be much lower.
So, while I probably wouldn't go a straight red for the foul, I'm more likely to give a three-card trick for the foul plus follow-up.

2. Once the defenders have managed to push the attacker away from the shooting danger area, stopped or slowed their forward progress, or shut down the options for a pass to an unmarked player, the promising attack is no longer there - possession in the front third is not enough.
If you don't think it's SPA, you can't give a caution for that at all. If you think the trip is only careless but not reckless, you could give the caution, but probably shouldn't unless there was more to the match context.
So, DK only, no card, easy.

 

[Justylove]

Had a situation today, two scenarios;

Scenario one:

Long ball over the top, defender holds attacker out wide on the halfway line, it was blatant, he never had the pace to beat the lad IMO. There was another defender in line more centrally, who I felt would have easily came across to make a challenge and was definitely in a position to do so body-wise, so I decided that it was a Caution, Holding, Stopping a Promising attack. Without that defender I think it would be a brave red for DOSGO, going by the videos posted here before, but what do you think on that?

Scenario two:

Ball down the flank, tricky winger is flying down the wing and is being shadowed all the way by the fullback. It's a promising situation, they're on the counter, though in my eyes he still has the defender to beat. The defender forces him wide of the penalty area and then in a mistimed careless tackle, trips him over.

I decided no sanction, my justification being he had gone too wide, was still running rather straight (i.e. to the goal line), all the defenders were back and in the penalty area ready to defend/cover and I felt that he had gone basically beyond the point we could it a promising attacking situation.

His team did ask why it wasn't a caution, again I thought fair question to ask. Had he been tripped earlier at any point during that run I think I'd have gone with a caution, but what do you guys think? Am I right to consider that a player going too wide/defenders coming back can negate a promising situation, or do I need to consider more/other factors?

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Scenario 1
The key criteria for DOGSO are as follows:
Distance
Direction
Defenders
Control

In the above you clearly would be certain on the defenders front (with hypothetically no other defender around) and it feels like you think that the attacker has or will gain control of the ball. So that's a tick in the box for 2 of the 4 criteria.
The offence occurs on the halfway line and in a wide position. Both of those would be red flags in making a DOGSO decision. Attacker has a long way to go from halfway and being out wide has to also cut in from to craft the chance.

For me, no DOGSO in this situation, even with no covering defender.

 

[one]

one
YHTBT. Caution sounds right. It would have to be very very obvious on all other considerations (other than distance) for me to give dogso for foul on half way line. From your description SPA sounds right.

two
Again YHTBT. A cut back from the goal line just outside the PA is a dangerous situation for defenders. A cross from close to the corner is less dangerous. There are times I'd caution the former SPA. Game context is important here too. You are the best to make the decision there.

 

[GraemeS]

Agree with the others, I think you're spot on with both decisions.

I've given DOGSO red for a trip just outside the centre circle - but that was dead center and the attacker had already beaten the entire defence. At taht distance, I'd be taking any hint of an excuse not to go red, and the width is enough for me to justify yellow.

And again for the second, if the momentum of the attack has stopped then I think the window for a mandatory SPA card is over too. You culd still card if the tackle was forceful enough, or if you felt like the tackle was carried out with the intention of tripping the opponent rather than just a careless attempt on the ball, but those are judgement calls you're entitled to make either way.