But by your logic, why not? He's just as guilty of trying to commit DOGSO as the player who handles the untouched IFK while just as innocent of the actual act of DOGSO. Why does one get a caution but not the other?
See the above post #126 but: One has an infraction. The other doesn't. UB can be attached to the handling offense for his attempt to deny because he actually committed an infraction along with it. If he swings and misses with his arm then there is no infraction to then evaluate the unsporting nature of his offense. Absolutely no way to justify only misconduct here imho. As MassRef said, it's all about context. In yours I don't see justification.
I will look it up tomorrow but I was pretty sure it used to read like that in the old law books. for the moment I am fighting a cold and I am going to sleep.
I'll agree we're pretty far down the rabbit hole. I'm just enjoying the thought exercise. Isn't misconduct it's own infraction though? And the misconduct you're cautioning on the handling is the thought "I'm going to deny the goal." The handling itself is, for reasons we've already established, not cautionable. So why do need a penal foul to caution the thought? You're not going to wait for a penal foul to caution dissent.
I was taught we don't have to mind read (if any of you can - I can't). Who's to say what the player "thought"? He handled the ball deliberately so our only task is to decide if it meets one of the 7+7 (as far as anything in addition to the DFK which in this case would be a PK)
Eastshire I see where you are going with this but instances of only misconduct without a foul or another infraction are pretty rare and specific, like you said, dissent. In this instance, I see the handling, not the attempt to handle, as the problem and the act that I deem to be unsporting. Without the handling to call, I really don't have any stepping stones to get to the unsporting in my mind. As many have said there is no specific black and white listing for this to be UB so we are playing a little fast and loose with the terminology, but once we actually have the handling occur, I think we are fine to tac on UB if we see fit. Without the handling to call the stretch is too far for me. If handling had an "attempt to" quality to it I might see it as plausible. socal lurker I might have misspoke on handling having once been an "attempts to" foul but I can't confirm or deny my claim because apparently somewhere along the way my law books from the period of 1999 to 2005 have disappeared. If someone still has copies of those to give the correct answer, whether I am right or wrong, please chime in. I am drawing on memories from when I was pretty young and may have misconstrued something. [Edit] This might be my only post today. I am coughing up my lungs and I just don't want to get on here that much.
fairplayforlife Thought you might be interested- I checked my one archival LOTG (circa 1975) -- nothing in Law XII nor the Decisions of the International Board suggest that attempted handling could be a handling offense or USB. (Only striking and kicking could then be punished for the attempt.) It was enough that handling be intentional. (Yup, younguns, before the great re-write transformed Law XII to Law 12, all penal fouls (now known as DFK fouls) had to be intentional.) My 70's copy of Fair or Foul, likewise does not suggest that an attempt at handling could be a foul or misconduct.
Could be. Like I said, I was young when I think I heard/read this. So I was barely 11, we don't have that pesky minimum age thing here, so I could have just been half remembering things.
Can't remember which thread we were talking about Double DOGSO in, but here is a question pulled from The Referee Quiz site. Credit to Rafal for writing it: "A defender, standing immediately next to his team's goal post, denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity to the opposing team by intentionally handling the ball. The ball, however, landed next to the opposing team's attacking player who also had an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The Referee decided to apply an advantage rule, but before it had a chance to materialize, another defender committed a reckless foul on the attacking player in possession of the ball. The attacking player never managed to take a shot on goal. The Referee stopped the play and at that time was advised by the Assistant Referee that the "goalkeeper", who made the save is a substitute goalkeeper, who switched places during the half time with the starting goalkeeper, without notifying the Referee. What should the Referee do?" The answer given was to send off both defenders and caution the substitute goalkeeper.
Ay dios mio -- not again. Hint: You can get out of the scenario mentioned with just one red card. No double DOGSO, just nail the second offense (maybe caution the first "attempt" to DOGSO). Caution for the GK is just silly, you accepted the change when the second half started. Side note: Am I the only one who is uncomfortable every time the term "double DOGSO" is used?
I like the phrase, it has a nice ring to it. I am only uncomfortable with the idea that it can exist. I am in the camp that says the second OGSO eliminates the first Denial; hence only one DOGSO remains. (I thought there was a memo that said Keeper changes at halftime, without notification, should be considered as implicitly accepted.)
I'm just posting what I saw. After the discussion we had previously, I tend to agree that you can't have two DOGSO's at once. When this question popped up, I chose to send off the original defender, caution the second and caution the GK (there was no option to not caution the GK). I just thought it was an interesting scenario based on our recent discussion. Now, if there was an excessive force tackle, do we send off both since advantage was never realized?
My inclination would be to send off the first defender for DOGSO-H, caution the second defender for a reckless foul (no double DOGSO), and not penalize the keeper at all under the rationale jayhonk described. And to pick at the question, if no shot on goal was taken (according to the text of the question), how could there have been a save?
Better be ready to sell it, but yeah, I can see a DOGSO red for the first tackle as advantage never materialized, and therefore the Denial occurred, and then just a SFP red for an excessive force tackle. Be ready for a coach to engage in irresponsible behavior if s/he has any temper, and a brief and very productive discussion with the coach/captain if they are both the most calm individuals on the field, but in the situation described in the other thread (defender rips shirt off of attacker, attacker still moving in control on goal, keeper submarines attacker, ball trickles out of bounds), if the determination is the goal keeper tackle was excessive, that is a double-red situation, but god help you for the rest of the match.
I think we as far as cautioning the keeper we are forgetting these are written at a professional level. Meaning the new keeper was supposed to wait at the half line and then switch before entering. So at the pros or a league where you have to do this I think the caution is correct. For the leagues most people do, I agree, you accepted the keeper change along with all the other subs when you started the 2nd half. (I believe it is NFHS that has that specific verbiage in their situations section.)
I see what you are saying, but again once you have started the second half with the new GK In place you have effectively accepted the change. To come back later and caution the GK is silly (even more so at the professional level). Just my humblest of opinions, though.
I get your point but I think this Caution would not be exclusive to keepers since you would have to caution any player that entered the field illegally to start the half. I too agree the referee takes some of the blame for allowing this to happen, but at some point the pros know better than to do this. Also they may have done this in order to get a free sub since you didn't notice and for all you know they still have their full amount of subs remaining.
Absolutely not an issue. No one can claim confusion in this instance, the keeper is observed before the 2nd half begins, lets play.
I agree with all that have said that double Dogso send offs shouldn't happen, it just isn't right. As the scenario is written I think the DOGSO red has to go to the first offence (as the referee played an advantage) and then it would be a caution for the tackle. Caution the sub GK or not as you like, might check the competition regulations first though. However there is one part of the text that have some interesting implied meaning though. Why put goalkeeper in quotation marks? And what save? It just about reads like that the player who made the initial handling (the one where advantage was played) was the sub GK. If that's the case then that changes quite a lot. Shouldn't be surprised I guess, most every question from that site that has been posted here has been poorly written and had this kind of obfuscated and confusing facts.