A&H

Hypothetical DOGSO situation

Defender 1 - Red or Yellow?

  • Red

    Votes: 11 91.7%

  • Yellow

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
E

Edward

New Member
Been reading a few posts on here and came across one where people were talking about how our interpretations of situations can perhaps prevent something from being DOGSO. Since reading it, I've thought up this hypothetical situation and wanted to get your guys' take on it.

Say an attacker has knocked the ball past the last defender 1, and is going to go through 1v1 with the 'keeper. There's another defender about 2 yards behind them (defender 2). He's suddenly brought down by defender 1, and a free-kick is awarded. Obviously in this situaiton you're looking at clear DOGSO right?

But what if, from your experience in the match so far, you know that the attacker has absolutely 0 pace whatsoever, and you know that defender 2, who's only a few yards behind, is lightning quick. Could you be justified in only giving a yellow card to defender 1 for the foul, reason being that you felt it was not an OGSO because you believe defender 2 would inevitably have caught the attacker?

It's an interesting one, but are we allowed to make those assumptions?
 
The Referee Store
These are valid consideration - even if there isn't another defender in a position to challenge or make a shot at the time, we need to consider whether there will be by the time he gets within shooting range.

Say you have a scenario where there's 1-on-1 with the keeper 20 yards out from goal. The fouling defender fouls from behind, there's another defender level with the attacker 5 yards to the side. The attacker is in shooting range and that defender can't block a shot from his position, so OGSO. But if it was 40 yards out? Good chance that defender will come across to challenge.

For your scenario, Edward, I'm going to assume the attacker is out of shooting range (maybe worth editing your post to specify?) - because if the attacker is in shooting range, then you have to consider DOGSO as if he's going to take the shot next step.

You can look at the relative pace of the attackers at the time of the incident - if the opponent is going to close the attacker down within the next second by the difference in their speed, then you take that into consideration. So I think you're not so much using your knowledge of the game, but simply how fast they're moving at the time. If the trailing defender is running at twice the speed of the attacker, that's worth taking into consideration....but only if he's outside shooting distance. Does that make sense?

Good question and I look forward to other responses.
 
I personally wouldn't make a DOGSO decision based on my own individual opinion of a player's physical ability. So what if he's Usain Bolt? Fact is, he might well have tripped and fallen over or something (just playing devil's advocate here you understand ;) ).
I'd give a DOGSO decision based on a basic presumption of everybody's position (providing the attacker was moving towards his opponent's goal) at that moment in time.
You haven't given any clue as to the whereabouts of this incident mate?
Anywhere within 10 yards of the half way line and it's a definite "no chance of DOGSO" for me. Any closer, again depending on how central/close to goal it is, depends largely on the scenario as I take my snapshot mental photo of it before blowing the whistle.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of DOGSO because of a covering defender's pace any more than I'd give DOGSO 50 yards from goal because I happen to know the attacker in question is like greased lightning.

At the end of the day, you have to punish the offence correctly. If the attacker is brought down whilst moving towards his opponent's goal with an obvious goal scoring opportunity at that moment in time, the perpetrator still deserves a red card, irrespective of how fast his fellow defender is.
Remember, the whole reason the "DOGSO" red card thing was introduced was in an attempt to counteract the cynical "professional foul" which was so prevalent in the 60s/70s.

Who remembers the infamous Willie Young foul during the 1980 FA Cup Final? :)

That's my view anyway. I had a similar call to make only a few weeks ago and chose the correct option according to my assessor. :)
 
Out of interest, anyone know when the DOGSO law was officially introduced?

Was too young to remember the '80 cup final, but was 11 at the time of the '85 final when Kevin Moran became the first player to see red in the FA cup final for his "last man" challenge on Peter Reid. Vaguely remember the commentators and media considering the red harsh, possibly because no one had ever been sent off in the final before and it wasn't the done thing! The FA officials at the Empire Stadium (do many people remember that was it's official name until the rebuild?) on the day withheld his winner's medal and Moran only received it a few days later after the FA reviewed the situation.
 
It depends what you mean by "official." DOGSO-F was adopted by the IFAB/FIFA in 1990 via a Mandatory Instruction of the IFAB and then included in the LotG (along with DOGSO-H) in 1991.

However in England the Football League had issued instructions that referees should consider the so-called "professional foul" as serious foul play as early as 1982.

Interestingly enough, the question of a player preventing "an almost certain goal opportunity" by holding an opponent had been discussed at the IFAB's Annual Meeting in 1979 and at that time they decided that "a caution would be the correct decision."
 
Last edited:
According to the magic book:
"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
"• the distance between the offence and the goal
"• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball"

So, as others have said, the distance between the player and the goal is key. But also, it's fair to consider the pace of both the attacker and the defender as this affects the likelihood of the attacker keeping control of the ball. More information probably need in the OP, but a yellow could be considered if this was a fair distance out from goal and the attacker was catching up quickly.
 
Cheers for the responses guys, felt it would be an interesting one to bring up.

On a a quick note, for this situation I was imaging the players were about 35 yards out, so my personal feeling is that it would be a yellow :)
 
35 yards out, out of shooting distance - so you'd definitely have to consider the distance between the players and the relative speed. DOGSO is definitely possible 35 yards out...even 50 or more. But it becomes progressively less likely as the chance of being intercepted by a defender increases.
 
If defender 2 is two yards behind the attacker when defender 1 brings him down 35 yards out then I think you have to give it as DOGSO - and I don't think anyone seeing such a scenario would understand it if you didn't. Even if the second defender is lightning quick, it's still highly unlikely he is going to be able to get past the forward and make a successful (and legal) challenge for the ball. For one thing, almost any defender in that situation would not try to get completely around in front of the forward, he's going to try to slide in around the side of the player's legs in an attempt to get to the ball with a high likelihood that the challenge would once again be illegal. To me, the idea that if the forward hadn't been brought down, another defender is going to have a chance to make another illegal challenge on him is not good enough reason to deny what would otherwise be one of the clearer examples of DOGSO that you're likely to see.

Now, if the defender was two yards to the side or if he was 50 yards out, maybe - but two yards behind with 35 to go?

Just imagine yourself as a neutral observer on the sideline when you see this in a match. Player clean through when brought down and the nearest other defender trailing two yards in their wake. Would you really not expect the referee to give that as DOGSO?
 
I am not comfortable with the idea of taking player's ability into account when making decisions. At what point in the game can you confidently conclude that Player A is so much faster than Player B? Impossible to say after 1 minute but by 60 minutes it might be obvious - does this mean your decision is different in the 1st and 60th minute? Then again, perhaps by 80 minutes Player A has run himself out and his pace advantage is no longer a factor. This is too much to consider - stick to LOTG as you know them.
 
Really interesting debate this one. We are already told to take into account players' skill levels when deciding on a DOGSO. I personally don't see any reason why this shouldn't apply to defenders' attributes (including speed) as well as attackers. In fact, whenever we decide whether 'covering defenders' would get back and stop a DOGSO we are making an implicit estimation of their speed in judging their ability to do so. If we were aware it was Theo Walcott rather than Per Mertesacker we might well reach a different conclusion! :)

As for decision making changing from one minute of the game to the next, again, I think we do this already in many facets of reffing (and actually Howard Webb stated as much in the recent RefsWorld podcast). A boggy second half pitch after a downpour would be less likely to lend itself to an OGSO (for example) ...
 
I generally tend to ask myself one question when these situations occur - Would the attacker have had a very good chance of having a shot on goal? If yes, regardless of ability, then it's a dismissal. If I think it would need a 'worldie' then I generally will caution. To emphasise my point I dismissed a defender for wiping out a pacy forward dead centre just ouside the centre circle but also only cautioned a GK for taking a forward out who was heading wide with 2 defenders running into covering positions behind the gk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top