Thanks. I admit I still have problems with DOGSO. First, I think too many officials look for reasons NOT to give it than to give it. Second, I think the ATR has completely screwed this area of the laws. FIFA says: ATR says: The I&G of the LotG make the elements considerations while the ATR makes them mandates. In regards to "direction of the play," the ATR removes "the". The I&G say "play," not "player", "attacker" or "ball". It is speaking of the direction of the play generally. The ATR restricts that by saying "the attacker must have been moving toward the goal." Thus, the ATR has again changed the standard. FIFA recognizes that the direction of the play and the direction of the attacker might not always be the same. Similarly, the I&G state that the location and number of defenders should be considered while the ATR appears to allow one defender but not two and take the offender out of the picture. My personal opinion is that the USSF has screwed the pooch and issued directives that were never intended by FIFA. So, to the issue at hand, I think DOGSO is a bit of a stretch under the ATR, but is not a stretch under the FIFA directives.
I agree with the sentiment 100% - I think the 4D's and being that finite with definitions gets in the way of the intent of the original law change. Add to it a differing opinion of "direction" and "obvious" and you end up with referees not only divided as to what to do, we send confusing messages to everyone. Instead of looking for ways to give or not give a red card or whatever, would a player at that level of skill have an opportunity (not a certainty) to score a goal but for the foul. If no foul at all then no decision. Getting bogged down in "toward goal" or could a defender make a play or is the keeper in good position and on and on I think the decision should be would the attacker be able to get a shot off on frame but for the foul. The 4 D's and any other help should be just that - not 4 absolute requirements as they are presented to us now but guidelines and help for us to decide if a legitimate opportunity (again not certainty) to score a goal was denied.
Yea but that is a "what if" that the offender doesn't get the benefit of. He made his choice and choose to commit an offence, he'll have to live with that.
This is one of the issues that I'm very curious as to how will be addressed in the replacement to the ATR, which is rumored to be not that far away from coming out. While I would personally prefer to see IFAB make some grander tweaks to DOGSO*, I have long shared your thought that we would be better off ditching the ATR mandate that all be present, which takes what should be a common sense evaluation (and IFAB flags key things to think about) into a formulaic model that can defy common sense. While the intent to aid consistency may be admirable, I think it has in reality caused more complication than consistency. _________ *I've said before what I think the DOGSO-F rule should be: a reckless or tactical act is upgraded to red if, ITOOTR, it denies an obviousl goal-scoring opportunity. (In other words, I would not use DOGSO on careless fouls -- while those, in the real world, are pretty rare, its also not what DOGSO is (IMO) really intended to prevent, and is too harsh in those contexts. But where the act is in fact reckless or tactical, I've got no qualms about the so-called triple punishment.
I agree that this makes a problem for the points you cover. However the one that is really strange is the "Distance to goal" bullet. All fouls will have a distance to goal and the added text "the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity" doesn't provide anything that you really can judge in a "must be present" way. I understand what they are aiming for but it is really poorly worded.
Which again, as camconcay points out, just further clouds the question of "would the attacker be able to get a shot off on frame but for the foul." The ATR's mistake is that it views these things as a check list rather than considerations in forming an overall view of whether an OGSO was actually denied. The "distance" and "defenders" can be viewed together in some situations, not as two separate elements. Even if there are defenders on both post, a GSO is far more obvious with a foul committed inside the 6 vs one on the 18. Likewise, an important element that is not mentioned is the run and speed of the attacker. An attacker on a dead sprint taken down at half may have had a far more OGSO than a player taken down while muscling by a defender 25 yards closer to goal.
On the actual play yes but the question i was answering was DOGSO so the defender who did throw the extra ball was still close enough to possibly defend - regardless of his foul he would still be considered close for OGSO or not.
No he does not. He committed the offence and thus any potential legal influence he might have had doesn't (normally) count when determining if it was an OGSO.
Not trying to be contrary but can you show me where so I know - truly didn't realize we were not to consider the person who committed the foul if that person was still able to defend.
Easiest is the line from the ATR: The IFAB has the same idea but with a bit more latitude. It's really a simple to understand principle. If the offender counts then in almost all situation all non-goalkeeper defenders would be be DOGSO proof and that kind of defies the idea of the DOGSO laws.