DOGSO H question

Discussion in 'Referee' started by chwmy, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. chwmy

    chwmy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    i'm a little embarrassed to ask this question, because i thought i knew the answer but now i'm not sure, and it's a scenario that isn't even that unlikely/unusual.

    breakaway: 1 v 1 attacker vs goalkeeper. no other defenders in sight.

    gk misjudges the PA margins and tackles the attacker outside the pa and blocks the attacker's dribble (not shot) with his hands- no foul on the attacker.

    ruling on field was sendoff.

    i had thought that if the offense were handling, that the sendoff would only be if the ball was going straight into the goal. but this reply from jim allen makes me think that the call was correct.

    http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=3381

    there, mr. allen says that even if the ball was not going into the net, if the handling infraction still satisfies the 4d's of dogso-f, the sendoff is still correct.

    what's the right call here?


  2. aphelorah

    aphelorah Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    If in the opinion of the referee the handling offense denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, the goalkeeper should be sent off for DOGSO-H. The four D's are used to help the referee make the decision on whether or not the goal scoring opportunity was "obvious". From the way you described it, it sounds like the referee made the right call.
  3. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    Agreed, I believe there used to be a picture in the LOTG showing this exact scenario.
  4. QuietCoach

    QuietCoach Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Location:
    Littleton, MA
    From a close reading of the Laws, this situation satisfies the criteria for two different sendoffs:

    1) DOGSO-F - The GK's handling outside the area is an offense punishable by a free kick, and it denied an OGSO. HOWEVER, if you record it this way, you may encounter resistance from people who believe DG-F can never be applied to handling.

    2) DOGSO-H - This GK's action involved handling outside the penalty area, where he gets no special treatment for being a GK, and the action clearly denied a scoring opportunity. HOWEVER, if you record it this way, you may get pushback from people who believe (per ATR 12.37 "but for the handling") DG-H only applies to SCORING, not to an OPPORTUNITY.

    Due to differences of interpretation of the Laws, I would an expect a referee who encounters this situation in a high-level match in the USA to be subject to strong criticism no matter what he does.

    - QC


  5. La Rikardo

    La Rikardo Member+

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    USSF has been incredibly wishy-washy on this issue. They'd said for so long that DOGSO-H could only occur when the ball was going into the goal if not for the handling. I've heard people claim that any handling offense that didn't directly prevent a goal from being scored could not be punished with anything more than a caution. I've never bought that. Jimmy Nielsen was sent off by Michael Kennedy last year against Chicago for DOGSO-H when a Chicago attacker was one-on-one with Nielsen outside the PA, the attacker tried to chip the ball over Nielsen, and Nielsen handled the ball outside the PA to deny an OGSO to the Chicago attacker. I can't find a clip of the play, but the match report on MLSSoccer.com said the send-off was for "Denied Goal Scoring Opportunity (Handball)". That seems to be the proper and correct way to go.
  6. soccerking1990

    soccerking1990 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    United States
    I'm sure this wouldn't qualify as DOGSO-H, but I had a situation two weekends ago in a premier match. Two attackers against one defender. Defender goes in for the tackle, so the attacker with possession makes a through pass in the air (just outside the penalty area). Defender handles the through ball, but doesn't get enough on it to stop the pass. The other attacker gathers and scores. I asked the center (NRC) if he thought it could possibly be DOGSO if the defender stopped the through ball. He didn't think it would be. I really don't know what I would consider it. If you only give a caution for deliberate handling, I feel that you would have a tough time selling future DOGSO offenses down the road.
  7. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    For those in the camp that this couldn't be DOGSO-H because there has to be an almost certain goal, wouldn't that open up a loophole for defenders wishing to break up an OGSO attack to simply dive and swat a ball away from the attacker?

    They achieve breaking up a OGSO but can't be sent off because the infraction is handling. :eek: To me this seems to indicate we would have a problem.
  8. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Those in that camp include USSF -- which leads to the view that DOGSO-F can also be used for deliberate handling. That's where ware today under the auspices of USSF. I'd like to see them re-imagine this a bit, and separate DOG-H (which is what it has been limited to) from DOGSO-H, and provide separate guidelines for DOGSO-H that would focus on the opportunity, but would (I would imagine) not exactly track the 4Ds as DOGSO-F denies the opportunity to an opponent and DOGSO-H is to the opposing team.

    But unless there is something more recent than the JA answer in the OP, USSF is telling us that DOG-H (the ball otherwise going into the goal) and DOGSO-F (with the 4Ds) are our only two options. Does anyone seen anything different in the guidance from USSF?
  9. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Location:
    Tampa
    Isn't the obvious ;) solution to just make it simpler. One misconduct called DOGSO. If you commit an offense and it denies an OGSO, red. Period.

    The rest just seems like unnecessary lawyering.
    (That's probably because I don't know something really important.....)
  10. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    Well, maybe called DOG(SO) so capture denying obvious goals, too . . .

    I don't disagree that it's been over lawyered, but considering that even with the over lawyering reasonable referees still differ after super-slo-mo replays, I wonder if we can possibly un-lawyer it without getting even wider discrepancies.
  11. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    I know that the USSF has gotten itself a bit confused in this issue, fortunately enough the IFAB isn't.

    Wouldn't it be easier to just use the Laws as written by the IFAB??? ;)
  12. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    I think that they are separated partly because, as socal said, it is easier to include the "denies a goal" situations and partly because it is easier to write the "GKs are allowed to handle it" exception that way.
  13. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    :D ...
  14. La Rikardo

    La Rikardo Member+

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    We can't have that! "7+6" just doesn't sound nearly as pretty as "7+7"!
  15. nsa

    nsa Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 1999
    Location:
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Country:
    United States
    Doesn't taste as good, either. ;)




    At WWC '95 USWNT 'keeper Briana Scurry was sent off, ostensibly for DOGSO-H, after simply stepping outside the PA with the ball in her hands when punting the ball. No opponent within 30 yds. of her. FIFA did not overturn the protest.
  16. code1390

    code1390 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    United States
    If FIFA has their way it will be 7+8 next year.
  17. code1390

    code1390 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Country:
    United States
    Wow. Wasn't DOGSO not added to the laws until 1997? If so, what was she sent off for?
  18. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    game coverage

    http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-09/sports/sp-11107_1_red-card

    protest denied:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-10/sports/sp-11663_1_red-card

    My quick search didn't find any quality analysis. Any one remember the details from back then? The only thing that makese sense to me is a misinterpretation of a directive about GKs handling outside the PA to break up attacks. But on a punt?!?!? Just insane.
  19. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    RBC

    (Refereed by Camara)

    This was the famous match against Denmark that ended with Mia Hamm playing keeper for the last two minutes. Even the Danish coach agreed it was a stupid call.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-09/sports/sp-11107_1_red-card
  20. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Iforgotwhat8wasfor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    It's been a while since I looked, but if I recall correctly, it's not so much that the USSF says you can't apply DGH to denial of an OGSO, but that they simply don't mention that you can. It's pretty clear if you read the LOTG.
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    You don't recall correctly.

    One of the statements from USSF is linked to in the OP. See also the January 19, 2011 answer:
  22. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Further down the page on a slightly different topic is this tidbit.

    So, it is not correct according to the USSF to apply the four D's to a handling offence. That would seem to leave you only what is in the FIFA Laws, which is that each of the four elements for DOGSO need only be "considered", and that "distance to ball" is inaplicable.
  23. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    I'm not sure what your point is.

    I didn't suggest that the 4Ds applied to DOGSO-H. (But I will quibble with your language: according to USSF you can apply the 4Ds to a "handlnig offence" because a handling offense can be DOGSO-F because it is an offense for which a free kick is awarded -- see the November 29, 2011 response, which I believe was referenced (but perhaps not cited) in the chain.)

    My point in the response you quoted was that USSF has said -- and more than once -- that DOGSO-H only applies when the ball was going into the net. See the ATR:

  24. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    http://db.tt/SBKk58GD

    The above link is evidence I am putting out there that as recently as 2007/2008 the USSF did believe that you could send off a player for DOGSO-H even if the goal was not a sure thing.

    There are three pictures scanned from the USSF LOTG with their descriptions below them.

    Picture 1 shows a keeper handling a ball that is attempting to be played past him. The keeper is outside the PA. "The ball is played forward to an attacking player and the goalkeeper handles it outside the penalty area. The keeper is sent off for denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity"

    Picture 2 shows a defending player blocking a shot that will certainly go in the goal. "An attacker, number 10, shoots the ball towards goal. Just before it crosses the goal line into goal a defender punches the ball over the bar. A penalty kick is awarded and the defender is sent off for denying the opposing team a goal"

    Picture 3 shows an defender outside the PA handling a ball that the attacker is attempting to play past him. Note the keeper is behind the attacker and could have possibly stopped the shot. "The ball is played towards the goal by the attacking team and a defender jumps and handles it as the attacking player moves towards the ball. The defender is sent off for denying the opposing team a goal-scoring opportunity"

    The quoted passages are US Soccer's words the bolded sections are my emphasis. We have US Soccer clearly distinquishing that there is a difference between a GSO and denying a goal, both resulting in send-offs. Why is it now we appear to have a belief that US Soccer no longer agrees this to be true when as someone stated earlier the IFAB still believe this?
  25. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    How about because of the various official answers that have been cited/quoted that came out in 2011?

    Have you read the January and November official answers? The statement in January could hardly be more clear:
    See also diagrams 7-10 in the current ATR applications of DOGSO. (pp 67-68 of the pdf version)

    (I'm not arguing in support of the interpretation; as I said early in the chain, I'd like to see it revisted. But I don't think USSF has left any doubt on its interpretation of DOGSO-H -- subject to the quirky, occaisonal application of DOGSO-F to deliberate handling offences.)

Share This Page