RefSix

Q: DOGSO - ball out of play

#1
After, a quick-counter attack, the defending team is out of shape and no defenders are in position. Attacker 1 is stood in the penalty area. The ball has just gone out for a throw-in to the attacking team and Attacker 2 is about to take a quick throw - all he needs to do is throw the ball to Attacker 1 who will have a free shot on goal. However, a defender pushes Attacker 2 to the floor, preventing the quick throw-in and giving the defenders enough time to get back into position.

This has clearly denied a goal scoring opportunity and a red card would seem fair but since the offense is not punishable by a free kick (since the ball was out of play), a red card for DOGSO cannot be given.

My question is can a referee justify giving (and should a referee give) two yellow cards, one for delaying the restart of play and one for stopping a promising attack?

(This question can also apply to a defender stopping a quick free kick.)
 

Yampy

RefChat Addict
#2
My thought is - if the ball is not in play, how can it be a promising attack?
And from your description,, I don't buy into the DOGSO argument either. Just doesn't tick the boxes.
 
Likes: JH
#4
I don't think you can stop a promising attack when the ball is not in play. Don't make this complicated. Give the caution (call it delay or call it USB for the push--anything orange as to VC would become red in this context).

And it absolutely, positively cannot be DOGSO as it doesn't come close to meeting the criteria, starting with the fact that DOGSO can only apply to offenses for which a FK is awarded.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#5
DOGSO can only apply to offenses for which a FK is awarded
Only because IFAB didn't envisage this scenario. Whilst not meeting the questionable criteria spouted about for DOGSO and assuming a goal was very likely, I'd be bending my interpretation of 'excessive force' to permanently sin bin the pusher. Highly likely MC (a new acronym AFAIK!) and loss of match control if any other decision is reached
 
#6
Same scenario but, Attacker takes a quick throwing ( ball is in play now ), a defender handles the ball to stop it going to the Attacker 2 ! DOGSO ?!!
 

one

RefChat Addict
#8
After, a quick-counter attack, the defending team is out of shape and no defenders are in position. Attacker 1 is stood in the penalty area. The ball has just gone out for a throw-in to the attacking team and Attacker 2 is about to take a quick throw - all he needs to do is throw the ball to Attacker 1 who will have a free shot on goal. However, a defender pushes Attacker 2 to the floor, preventing the quick throw-in and giving the defenders enough time to get back into position.

This has clearly denied a goal scoring opportunity and a red card would seem fair but since the offense is not punishable by a free kick (since the ball was out of play), a red card for DOGSO cannot be given.

My question is can a referee justify giving (and should a referee give) two yellow cards, one for delaying the restart of play and one for stopping a promising attack?

(This question can also apply to a defender stopping a quick free kick.)
Not a DOGSO for the simplest reason you explained, you cant give a free kick for it. You can't give two yellows because it is two offences at the same time (one act that can be punished two different ways). You can only punish the more serious offence.

Don't make up your own justice system. Apply the laws of the game as they are. Just because you think his act deserves a send off, it doesn't mean you can make up reasons outside the laws (or even unjust other reasons within law) to send him off. Send offs and goals followed by penalties are the biggest KPIs in the game and must be correct in law.

Same scenario but, Attacker takes a quick throwing ( ball is in play now ), a defender handles the ball to stop it going to the Attacker 2 ! DOGSO ?!!
YHTBT but it sounds like one given it satisfies all DOGSO criteria.
 
#9
Original scenario can't be DOGSO (ball out of play) but it does sound like there's a potential for a VC offence if the push that sent the defender to the ground was forceful enough.
Whilst not meeting the questionable criteria spouted about for DOGSO
The only real criterion for a DOGSO offence is that the referee judges that an obvious goal scoring opportunity was denied. There are some perfectly reasonable factors (IMHO) that the referee has to consider in coming to that decision but the overall decision comes down to, "Was an obvious goal scoring opportunity denied?" I'm not sure what's so questionable about that concept.
 
#10
Ok, so the only way to deliver what football expects is to red card for violent conduct but anything less than a forceful shove can only be punished with a yellow card because it is one offense. Can't even give a free kick - unlucky, attacking team.
 
#11
Ok, so the only way to deliver what football expects is to red card for violent conduct but anything less than a forceful shove can only be punished with a yellow card because it is one offense. Can't even give a free kick - unlucky, attacking team.
Unfortunately true. That said, fair to say that my tolerance level regarding any further indiscretions by the offending player would be set very low ... was that challenge reckless or that complaint dissent?? I rather think it was ;):)
 
#12
Ok, so the only way to deliver what football expects is to red card for violent conduct but anything less than a forceful shove can only be punished with a yellow card because it is one offense. Can't even give a free kick - unlucky, attacking team.
I'm not so sure that a red card is 'what football expects' here - not unless the push actually is violent conduct. You seem to have convinced yourself that because a player was prevented from taking a throw in, a clear goal scoring opportunity has been denied but has it? Certainly, not according to anything the laws say. The player never even had the ball and we've no real way to know if they would have got it and if they did, whether they would have controlled it, etc.

I don't see how a player without the ball can be said (with any real degree of confidence) to have an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Especially when the ball isn't even in play. I think you can say they might probably have ended up with an OGSO if things had gone well for them but they certainly didn't have one at the time the push on the thrower occurred.
 

Justylove

RefChat Addict
#14
I went to an event with an SG2 Referee Speaking and the group covered the whole session on DOGSO. What I took away from it was "3 D's and a C"

Direction -What is the direction of play? (Towards Goal or Not)
Defenders - Is There a defender that could make another challenge?
Distance - What is the distance from goal?
Control - What is the likelihood of the attacker maintaining OR gaining control of the ball?

If the ball is out of play at least 2 of those (Direction & Control) cannot be really answered in a way that would provide a DOGSO outcome, therefore I can't see how you could ever S/O for this. The question on VC or not would be based on how hard the push was and whether it met the VC criteria or not, which is a completely different discussion.

If the player has taken the throw in and the ball is in the air at the time that offence takes place, then that could significantly impact your decision making process.
 
#15
After, a quick-counter attack, the defending team is out of shape and no defenders are in position. Attacker 1 is stood in the penalty area. The ball has just gone out for a throw-in to the attacking team and Attacker 2 is about to take a quick throw - all he needs to do is throw the ball to Attacker 1 who will have a free shot on goal. However, a defender pushes Attacker 2 to the floor, preventing the quick throw-in and giving the defenders enough time to get back into position.

This has clearly denied a goal scoring opportunity and a red card would seem fair but since the offense is not punishable by a free kick (since the ball was out of play), a red card for DOGSO cannot be given.

My question is can a referee justify giving (and should a referee give) two yellow cards, one for delaying the restart of play and one for stopping a promising attack?

(This question can also apply to a defender stopping a quick free kick.)
It can only be a caution for the defender who pushes the forward, as the ball is not in play.
 
#17
Violent Conduct can happen at any time
If a red card is the 'expected' outcome from the incident, I'm sure it would be wise to 'find' one
Yes if the push was done violently but that wasn't stated. The only way a red card can be issued is if the push is Violent. This is 100% not D.O.G.S.O.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#18
Yes if the push was done violently but that wasn't stated. The only way a red card can be issued is if the push is Violent. This is 100% not D.O.G.S.O.
That's only because the Laws can't envisage every incident/scenario, otherwise the book would be 1000 pages.
99% of the time --> it's BAU, but I envisage occasions on which we need to reach the right outcome one way or another. There does seem to be a culture in refereeing to hold onto the precise wording of the book, which in my view is not in keeping with the philosophy of it all
 
#19
That's only because the Laws can't envisage every incident/scenario, otherwise the book would be 1000 pages.
99% of the time --> it's BAU, but I envisage occasions on which we need to reach the right outcome one way or another
A sending off for DOGSO CANNOT apply in these circumstances the ball was not in play! You can argue till you are blue in the face otherwise but there is nothing in the Laws to justify a sending off unless the push is Violent!
 
#20
The challenge of being a referee in gray areas is to know when you are relying on Law 18 (common sense) and when you are MSU (making stuff up).

There's no gray area here. DOGSO is a specific offense with specific criteria. Giving a send off for DOGSO for something that happens when the ball is out of play is MSU. Any appeal panel should overturn the decision and order the game replayed if a referee does so.

As has been stated, the only way you get to a red here is if you can seriously get to VC. (Or you can be quick to sanction dissent if there is argument about the red, but that creates other issues for you to deal with.)

There is flexibility in the laws, but there is a limit when something is black and white in the laws.
 
Top