Sanctions

[DRA@CentralAlbertSoccer]

Question from a grassroot level new Referee:
Is there a sanction for a player who pushes an attacker on a breakaway the defender is hot on his heels, at the last possible moment the defender leans out and pushes the attacker in the back while in the penalty area the attacker keeps their balance long enough to get a shot off and score the goal?

 

[Viridis1886]

Well the offence would be Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

But...

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

No sanction as the offence did not deny a goal or a scoring opportunity.

 

[JamesL]

Question from a grassroot level new Referee:
Is there a sanction for a player who pushes an attacker on a breakaway the defender is hot on his heels, at the last possible moment the defender leans out and pushes the attacker in the back while in the penalty area the attacker keeps their balance long enough to get a shot off and score the goal?

If a goal is scored and the offence would have been DOGSO it's a yellow card.
If it would have been stopping/interfering with a promising attack and advantage is played to allow the goal, no sanction, unless it was reckless or with excessive force.

 

[Russell Jones]

Most definitely the kind of situation where being seen to 'have a word' with the offending player on the way back to halfway would probably be beneficial for game management and likely to go down well with an observer.

 

[OldNavyRef]

I think at grassroots it sits a little in the camp of over management for me.

If the player tried to deny a goal, but didn't make any impact as the goal was scored and they also didn't do anything reckless or excessive.

Then just let it go. They've conceded.

Possibly a public rebuke to keep authority/presence in the game "number 4 think about the position you put me in with that push had they missed" as I run off.

 

[OldNavyRef]

If a goal is scored and the offence would have been DOGSO it's a yellow card.
If it would have been stopping/interfering with a promising attack and advantage is played to allow the goal, no sanction, unless it was reckless or with excessive force.

Hi @JamesL , can't find the reference for a would be DOGSO. Had some coach mention it is either DOGSO or not.

So would be good to get your source if it is easy to find.

 

[RefereeX]

Hi @JamesL , can't find the reference for a would be DOGSO. Had some coach mention it is either DOGSO or not.

So would be good to get your source if it is easy to find.

From law 12.3

 

[socal lurker]

I think at grassroots it sits a little in the camp of over management for me.

If the player tried to deny a goal, but didn't make any impact as the goal was scored and they also didn't do anything reckless or excessive.

Then just let it go. They've conceded.

Possibly a public rebuke to keep authority/presence in the game "number 4 think about the position you put me in with that push had they missed" as I run off.

Per the Op, “leans out and pushes the attacker in the back.” That sounds excessive to me—a blatant, unsporting effort to stop a goal. As I’m picturing that play, I am absolutely cautioning for it in any game I do.

For a more border-line foul, I might go your path—depends a lot on the particular game, situation, and temperature.

 

[one]

From law 12.3
View attachment 7331

This IMO is very bad wording and should not be used as justification for caution in OP. In fact it's justification for not cautioning as the offence "was not" (in apposed to would have been) DOGSO. It's bad wording because the same "was" word is used for SPA. Hope I am clear on what I'm trying to say.

Assuming the OP is caution, what if you apply advantage on DOGSO and a goal is NOT scored. This same law means you would only caution. Surly the sanction can't be the same for both cases of goal being scored and not being scored.

 

[JamesL]

This IMO is very bad wording and should not be used as justification for caution in OP. In fact it's justification for not cautioning as the offence "was not" (in apposed to would have been) DOGSO. It's bad wording because the same "was" word is used for SPA. Hope I am clear on what I'm trying to say.

Assuming the OP is caution, what if you apply advantage on DOGSO and a goal is NOT scored. This same law means you would only caution. Surly the sanction can't be the same for both cases of goal being scored and not being scored.

Yes. Because we're not basing the sanction on an obvious goal.
The principle is that if you apply advantage you are essentially retaining the OGSO, i.e. it was not denied same with SPA. The outcome does not hang on the scoring of a goal.

The sensible option 99% of time is to stop play and send off.

 

[one]

Yes. Because we're not basing the sanction on an obvious goal.
The principle is that if you apply advantage you are essentially retaining the OGSO, i.e. it was not denied same with SPA. The outcome does not hang on the scoring of a goal.

The sensible option 99% of time is to stop play and send off.

And if the offence was not a push but a challenge for the ball? We have a situation where the sanctions is very inconsistent with your interpretation,

1. No advantage, give the penalty, and sanction is caution.
2. Play advantage and goal is scored, it's a caution.
3. Play advantage and no goal is scored, well... caution.

The fact that advantage is played very rarely should be irrelevant in what sanction is appropriate.

It will be interesting what ifab would think about the sanction for the three scenarios above being the same.

 

[JamesL]

And if the offence was not a push but a challenge for the ball? We have a situation where the sanctions is very inconsistent with your interpretation,

1. No advantage, give the penalty, and sanction is caution.
2. Play advantage and goal is scored, it's a caution.
3. Play advantage and no goal is scored, well... caution.

The fact that advantage is played very rarely should be irrelevant in what sanction is appropriate.

It will be interesting what ifab would think about the sanction for the three scenarios above being the same.

I'm seeing a lot of consistency in the sanction here..

But to humour you...

No advantage, give the penalty, and sanction is caution. - double jeopardy, OGSO is restored by penalty. Think the whole of football agrees this is the right approach.


Play advantage and goal is scored, it's a caution - attempt to DOGSO is an unsporting action


Play advantage and no goal is scored, well... caution - OGSO was not denied and the action of attempting DOGSO is unsporting.

All these scenarios fit perfectly into a caution for me. The last one of the 3 is the one where the referee has to reflect as to whether the advantage existed in comparison. Dogso is a punishing the more serious offence scenario, where the denial bit is missing due to advantage then a downgrade to caution feels appropriate.

It's a you can't have your cake and eat it too situation. If advantage is played, the action in doing this is saying the OGSO still exists, i.e. it hasn't been denied (eating the cake), you then can't send off the offender, because the attacker didn't score (still having the cake after eating it).

I don't really see the inconsistency in this approach and it works well, in my opinion.

 

[one]

I'm seeing a lot of consistency in the sanction here..

But to humour you...

No advantage, give the penalty, and sanction is caution. - double jeopardy, OGSO is restored by penalty. Think the whole of football agrees this is the right approach.


Play advantage and goal is scored, it's a caution - attempt to DOGSO is an unsporting action


Play advantage and no goal is scored, well... caution - OGSO was not denied and the action of attempting DOGSO is unsporting.

All these scenarios fit perfectly into a caution for me. The last one of the 3 is the one where the referee has to reflect as to whether the advantage existed in comparison. Dogso is a punishing the more serious offence scenario, where the denial bit is missing due to advantage then a downgrade to caution feels appropriate.

It's a you can't have your cake and eat it too situation. If advantage is played, the action in doing this is saying the OGSO still exists, i.e. it hasn't been denied (eating the cake), you then can't send off the offender, because the attacker didn't score (still having the cake after eating it).

I don't really see the inconsistency in this approach and it works well, in my opinion.

1. Pen given. Let's set this as the benchmark since the concept is that GSO is restored by pen and the send off reduced to caution because of it (or remains send off if no attempt to playe the ball).

2. Goal is scored after advantage. There is no DOGSO here. There has been a goal scored. If you are giving USB for attempted DOGSO, you should also be giving USB after attempted SPA for the same reason (inconsistency).

3. No goal is scored after advantage. Regardless of the sanction,, it would be the same sanction if the offence was not a challenge for the ball. This is inconsistent since the spirit of law for DOGSO situations requires a higher sanction when no attempt is made to play the ball.

 

[JamesL]

1. Pen given. Let's set this as the benchmark since the concept is that GSO is restored by pen and the send off reduced to caution because of it (or remains send off if no attempt to playe the ball).

2. Goal is scored after advantage. There is no DOGSO here. There has been a goal scored. If you are giving USB for attempted DOGSO, you should also be giving USB after attempted SPA for the same reason (inconsistency).

3. No goal is scored after advantage. Regardless of the sanction,, it would be the same sanction if the offence was not a challenge for the ball. This is inconsistent since the spirit of law for DOGSO situations requires a higher sanction when no attempt is made to play the ball.

Attempting to DOGSO is not the same as attempting spa.

Hence each are consistent in that the sanction steps down one. That is red to yellow, yellow to nothing.

The fact a goal is scored or not is irrelevant in this process