zarathustra
RefChat Addict
That makes sense to me, I bet that is one of those once in a life time situations.
Open Age How to deal with a myth of the game
- Thread starter Ganajin
- Start date
You could be right.
The attached is from the FA website:
"Q12: If a player commits a DOGSO offence punished by an indirect free kick (IDFK) in the penalty area what is the disciplinary sanction? The change relating to DOGSO offences is only when the referee awards a penalty kick. This is because the penalty kick effectively restores the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity. As an IDFK does not restore the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the sanction for any DOGSO offence resulting in an IDFK is a sending-off (RC)."
But as you say, play was stopped to caution the player rather than for a definite offence.
However, the player's action blatantly took away the gso so I'm not sure. If it was showing dissent etc then I could see that it wouldn't impact the player. Where it's directed towards the player and so explicitly aimed at preventing a goal then I felt it warranted dismissal.
I hope it is!
The team manager is a good mate of mine who I've known for 30 years. He asked if their player's ban would come in the following week, in which case they'd appeal because the team had a cup final, but otherwise they didn't have a problem with it.
I just googled "dogso unsporting behaviour" and found a US site referring to a gk simulating a head injury to get play stopped and deny a goal scoring opportunity. While I'm not sure they actually reached a definitive opinion on the sanction the consensus appeared to be dismissal for dogso, although the rider was that it wasn't aimed at an opponent so they weren't sure.
One of the comments stated "in England the free kick offence has to be committed against an opponent for it the DOGSO-FK, which is how the old Q&A approaches it." I'm not sure where this is from, because it may give the context i.e. Is anything against an opponent enough or does it have to be a definite foul?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
The offence is punished by a caution.....if you have to stop play to administer it, the restart is a IDFK.....if play is already stopped then the restart would be whatever play was stopped for......i.e. throw in...as player goes to take the throw, his opponent verbally distracts him......the offence is punished by a caution, but the restart would be the throw in as play wouldn't have restarted because the ball wasn't in play.......
Not convinced that you can make a legitimate case for DOGSO in these circumstances........although if a player was 5 yards out from an open goal, and a verbal distraction caused him to miss......hard to sell not giving the DOGSO......
Not convinced that you can make a legitimate case for DOGSO in these circumstances........although if a player was 5 yards out from an open goal, and a verbal distraction caused him to miss......hard to sell not giving the DOGSO......
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It seems to me we've been here before. For DOGSO-F to occur, you have to have "an offence punishable by a free kick." It also has to be committed against an opponent which rules out things like dissent. The debate centres on whether verbally distracting is an offence that is punishable by an indirect free kick or not, given that an IFK does not have to be awarded unless play is stopped to administer the caution (which is the actual punishment). This is in contrast to other IFK offences such as PIADM, impeding without contact and the various goalkeeping offences where the IFK is given as a direct punishment for the offence.
Personally, I thought the debate leaned a little more towards such offences not being punishable as DOGSO under previous versions of the laws when the part of the law talking about awarding an IFK when play is stopped to issue a caution was in a separate section and not included in the list of IFK offences in the way it is now. Now that it is included in the list, I think it skews the debate slightly in the other direction.
Then there is the point mentioned by Padfoot that if the verbal distraction is clearly what denied the obvious goal scoring opportunity it would seem almost counter-intuitive not to give it. Possibly a case where even (or especially) if the law is not crystal clear, there is room for a "spirit of the game" decision?
Personally, I thought the debate leaned a little more towards such offences not being punishable as DOGSO under previous versions of the laws when the part of the law talking about awarding an IFK when play is stopped to issue a caution was in a separate section and not included in the list of IFK offences in the way it is now. Now that it is included in the list, I think it skews the debate slightly in the other direction.
Then there is the point mentioned by Padfoot that if the verbal distraction is clearly what denied the obvious goal scoring opportunity it would seem almost counter-intuitive not to give it. Possibly a case where even (or especially) if the law is not crystal clear, there is room for a "spirit of the game" decision?
That was my take at the time. It was certainly the player's intention, and it actually won them the game, because his team won even though down to ten men. The goal would have tied the match but they missed the resultant free kick.
I sent a player off for dogso this morning because of a coming together where the foul by the dismissed player was a lot less intentional. As Peter says it seemed counter-intuitive not to give it.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I had a weird one today with kicks from the long penalty mark in futsal. Blue goes to take the kick, misses, but during the run up there is a definite "ah" from the red bench. It could have only come from the red coach but I didn't see him do it. A minute later a repeat scenario. Blue runs up to take the long penalty, misses, clear "ah" in the run up. Again, it could be the red coach but he is behind me and I am officiating alone. I pause the game and tell him he will be ejected if I catch him deliberately attempting to verbally distract.
In retrospect I am gutted I didn't order a re-take for the first one - as I didn't need to know who was attempting the verbal distraction in order to punish it.
Thankfully the blues got a third long penalty seconds later and buried it and it was the only goal of the game.
Typical for U15s - the players kept it together but the coach was a, well, family show
In retrospect I am gutted I didn't order a re-take for the first one - as I didn't need to know who was attempting the verbal distraction in order to punish it.
Thankfully the blues got a third long penalty seconds later and buried it and it was the only goal of the game.
Typical for U15s - the players kept it together but the coach was a, well, family show