DOGSO and the Advantage

[wjarrettc]

Saw an interesting play in the the Galaxy v. Burn game on Saturday. Late in the game, Carlos Ruiz got behind the Burn defense around midfield and pushed the ball far ahead of himself and tried to run onto. Burn keeper Scott Garlick, who was already way off his line, came out and challenged Ruiz about 35 yards from goal. Just before the challenge, Ruiz touched the ball over Garlick and the keeper ended up cleaning Ruiz out pretty heavily flipping Ruiz head over heels. The keeper never touched the ball.

Now had the referee blown the whistle right then and there, we had a textbook case of DOGSO with the keeper earning a straight red card. But to Ruiz's credit, instead of wallowing around on the ground looking for the card, he popped up, gathered the ball, and finished the goal. Luckily, the ref had held his whistle, allowed the Advantage, and the Galaxy scored an insurance goal late in the game.

The part that I found interesting was this. In our grade 08 class, they went to great lengths to explain that the Advantage call doesn't nullify the fact that a foul occurred. In fact, they emphasized how that when playing Advantage on a bookable offense, it was necessary to come back after the play and book the offender.

So...would it have been legitimate for the referee to come back and red card the keeper for DOGSO even though technically the goal scoring opportunity was not in fact denied. When looked at as a whole, there was no DOGSO, but when looked at as separate "snapshots", we have DOGSO, an advantage play, and a goal.

I don't believe the referee booked the keeper at all (yellow or red). The play happened in stoppage time so it didn't really have a bearing on the result either way but I just found the situation curious. What do you guys think?


(Edit: After posting this, I noticed this thread which has a similar discussion: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108688 Perhaps the threads should be merged)

[Gary V]

I didn't see the game, but as I read your description, Ruiz was the only attacking player involved. Since after the advantage he was able to score, there was no goal denied, and therefore DOGSO not would apply. The keeper might be cautioned.

Had the ball squirted out to another attacker, it could be argued that the original foul of Ruiz did indeed deny a goal, and only on a subsequent play following advantage was the goal scored. The keeper would then be sent off. This is the USSF interpretation; it is different in other countries.

Your description of the play, however, raises doubt in my mind that all "4 D's" existed, so no DOGSO. That would be the reason that there was no caution given - the ref would have to go back to the careless/reckless/excessive standard, and the foul was only careless.

[But Referee]

FYI - the replay is at the MLS website, in the highlights ("Ruiz nets a MLS-leading 6th goal" http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/ )




So...would it have been legitimate for the referee to come back and red card the keeper for DOGSO even though technically the goal scoring opportunity was not in fact denied. When looked at as a whole, there was no DOGSO, but when looked at as separate "snapshots", we have DOGSO, an advantage play, and a goal.




A) Nice goal.

B) Good job by the referee in letting the play develop (or possibly got a lucky bounce of the ball, hard to say).

C) If a send off would be for denying the opportunity, and he still scores, has Garlick denied the opportunity? My answer would be no, he has not.

D) By blowing the whistle so quickly (only a second or two sooner) the referee would have severely limited his options.

E) You've asked a great question and answered it yourself.

[Caesar]

I didn't see the game, but as I read your description, Ruiz was the only attacking player involved. Since after the advantage he was able to score, there was no goal denied, and therefore DOGSO not would apply. The keeper might be cautioned.

Had the ball squirted out to another attacker, it could be argued that the original foul of Ruiz did indeed deny a goal, and only on a subsequent play following advantage was the goal scored. The keeper would then be sent off. This is the USSF interpretation; it is different in other countries.

Your description of the play, however, raises doubt in my mind that all "4 D's" existed, so no DOGSO. That would be the reason that there was no caution given - the ref would have to go back to the careless/reckless/excessive standard, and the foul was only careless.Agreed.

I would note as an aside that in other countries (the US is kind of unique in this respect) if a goal is scored (or an unaffected attempt on goal is made), the advantage DOES nullify any DOGSO and the maximum penalty is either:

1) for the foul itself under the standards of "careless, reckless, or using excessive force", or

2) for Unsportsmanlike Behaviour in ATTEMPTING to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

[Ref Flunkie]

I asked this question a while back to the "Ask a Referee" thing on ussoccer.com, and they told me it would be a caution situation.

[billf]

I saw the play, but I don't think you can come back and send off the keeper unless Ruiz missed the goal. The keeper didn't deny a goal scoring opportunity in this case. If you want to come back and show yellow letting him know what might have been, go for it.

[MidwestRef]

In USSF, this is a caution (I'm not sure why the referee didn't book Garlick - it was pretty clear that Garlick really wasn't making a play on the ball) because Ruiz wasn't denied a goal-scoring opportunity. However, under high school rules, this foul still results in a send-off. High school rules clearly state that it does not matter whether the offense scores after a DOGSO foul or a handling that could have prevented a goal.

I'm glad someone mentioned something about the USSF interpretation regarding a new player scoring a goal after a DOGSO foul. I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, but I'll go along with it.

[kevbrunton]

I was watching the game and after it happened, I was sitting there saying, OK, now go back and caution Garlick.

Also, regarding the 4 D's, IMO, they were all definitely there.

# Defenders - not more than one between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender that committed the foul -- there were NONE other than Garlick between the foul and the goal.

Distance to goal - it occurred about 25 yards out directly in front of goal.

Distance to ball - it occurred on the ball.

Direction - Ruiz was in on a break away going straight at goal straight up the middle of the field.

So it most definitely was a DOGSO foul, but since Ruiz was able to recover in time to make a subsequent play, he nullifies the DOGSO. However, Garlick still should have been booked for it.

BTW, someone mentioned that if Ruiz misses the shot, then you can come back and red card Garlick -- I don't believe that to be the case.

If you allow Ruiz to recover and make a subsequent play on the ball, then the DOGSO offense has been nullified -- in other words, you have played the advantage at the point at which he makes the subsequent play. You can't play the advantage and let him shoot and then when he missed the goal call the advantage back.

Now if he misses because by the time he recovers another defender has gotten into the play and stopped the advantage, that's a different story. Then you could say that the advantage didn't materialize.

[chrisrun]

Now if he misses because by the time he recovers another defender has gotten into the play and stopped the advantage, that's a different story. Then you could say that the advantage didn't materialize.

So in this example, if the defender who just missed blocking the subsequent shot was able to poke it away, would the whistle be blown and a DFK from the spot of the foul with a red card given? Or did just taking the shot mean that the advantage was realized, no foul and a resultant corner kick?

[billf]

I don't believe that simply taking the shot would realize the advantage in this situation since the affect of the foul could lead to an off balance and wildly inaccurate shot. IMO, the whole thing, minus the caution, played out to perfection here. The advantage I'm expecting on that play is the ball rolling into the goal after a calm and collected finish. If he missed as a result of the foul, IMO that is, I think I'd bring it back and show the keeper red.

[Ref Flunkie]

Are we sure he didn't caution him? I know it may not have been shown on TV, but did someone check the game report? I do agree, perfect play minus the caution.

[MassachusettsRef]

Why does everyone want a caution here?

You're in the 93rd minute of a game that's been decided. You've only had one caution the whole game. The player you could caution (Garlick) has just been scored upon despite his foul. What does a caution "get you" (as a referee) at this point? And, moreover, how would you classify it? Is it UB.c for a tactical foul? I can't buy that, because there ended up being no tactical advantage to committing that foul. Only true classification could be UB.a for a reckless tackle. But again, why would you do that? Remember, almost all UB cautions are discretionary. You have the discretion not to give this caution. I know some MLS fans will whine about "consistency" in calls, but the fact is that each individual incident needs to be looked at in the context of the particular match. In this case, a caution gets you absolutely nothing and only adds insult to Garlick and the Burn (and won't help you at all the next time you have to ref the Burn). No one "wants" this caution, so why be overly officious and give it?

[Ref Flunkie]

In this case, a caution gets you absolutely nothing and only adds insult to Garlick and the Burn (and won't help you at all the next time you have to ref the Burn). No one "wants" this caution, so why be overly officious and give it?

Because it was deserved. I consider it unsporting behavior to even attempt DOGSO, but as you say UB cautions are up to the particular ref so perhaps this one thought as you did. Personally, I would have cautioned him.

[chrisrun]

Why does everyone want a caution here?

In this case, a caution gets you absolutely nothing and only adds insult to Garlick and the Burn (and won't help you at all the next time you have to ref the Burn). No one "wants" this caution, so why be overly officious and give it?
It may not help during this game, but do we want to encourage that behavior? It's late and we're losing, so I might as well play a hard foul. The ref probably won't give me a yellow. Also, there is a point system in MLS that causes cautions to add up over games. If it was a foul that deserved a yellow, it should be given, if not for this game, for the overall points of the player.

[MassachusettsRef]

Because it was deserved. I consider it unsporting behavior to even attempt DOGSO, I don't know if you could say Garlick was "attempting to DOGSO" (and even if he was, that's not a cautionable offence--a "tactical" or "reckless" foul are the only classifications you could use here).

I think he was trying to make a fair tackle on the ball and got beat badly by Ruiz. Again, these are professional players--you have to consider all the circumstances and nuances involved. Garlick knows his team has lost and he knows there is almost zero time left. Why would he come flying out of his box to take down Ruiz and be forced to sit out next week's game (and, whenever goalie's miss a game, they are also risking the loss of their job if their replacement gets hot)? Garlick made an honest, hard challenge on the ball. He missed. He knew he took the risk of getting a red card and I guarantee he would have taken off his gloves and walked off the field without saying a word if Ruiz hadn't gotten up.

However, cautioning Garlick in this circumstance is just unnecessary and I think you would have a difficult time justifying it, anyway. As I said, it's not tactical and can it really be considered reckless? It's a careless foul, in my book. Garlick didn't get beat and cynically go after Ruiz--he just mistimed his challenge and cleaned Ruiz out because of the speed of the entire play. This was a red card (if Ruiz doesn't get up) or nothing. I don't think there's a middle ground. And, even if there was, as I've said, I don't know why any referee would seek it out. The yellow card in this circumstance serves no purpose and will bring nothing but trouble upon the referee (in that game and in the future). We, as referees, have discretion for a reason. Let the goal stand, let the game end, and let well enough alone.

[MassachusettsRef]

As I said in my above post, I don't think there's any type of "behavior" that is being encouraged. Garlick knew the risks he was taking and he knew he might see red if he fouled Ruiz. As a professional player, he took that risk. However, there's no way Garlick charged out of goal with no time left in order to clean out Ruiz for fun and take a red card and a suspension. If anyone thinks that's the case, they're being naive.

Also, there is a point system in MLS that causes cautions to add up over games. If it was a foul that deserved a yellow, it should be given, if not for this game, for the overall points of the player.I knew I was going to--and wanted to--open up this can of worms.

The 7+7 document with points system is a creation of USSF and is for league administrators (MLS and USL included) to use as they see fit. It is not a bible for referees to follow religiously. One of the cautionable offences is "makes unauthorized marks on the field". Are you telling me that every referee should caution every goalkeeper who digs his cleats in a little to the ground to mark angles? Should every single instance of dissent be cautioned?

The fact is that referees have to think in context of the game they are managing. They need to do what works--especially in the administration of cautions--for that particular game. Just as referees should not worry too much about the caution point totals going into the game (and thus let someone off because they are too close to suspension) they should not worry about caution point totals for the future (and feel compelled to issue a card solely because it "wouldn't be fair" to the rest of the league if this guy wasn't cautioned). They should do what is right for that game.

The 7+7 document exists so we can correctly classify the cards we give for the league's benefit and for nothing more. It does not exist in order to tell us what we should be issuing cautions for. The Laws of the Game exist for that and they are clear that unsporting behavior is an offense that is left up to each individual referee's discretion.

[billf]

I know where you're going Mass, but why should the caution buy us something? It was Garlick who decided to cheat. I'd ask hime why he'd do something so foolish with the game pretty much decided. In the context of the league where caution points add up, deciding not to give the caution could have an affect later on. In some cases where there is a more subjective decision to be made, I can see using this approach to a degree. However, this is a clear situation where a player made a definate decision to cheat in a most foul manner. I don't see flexibility here. To me, this wouldn't be fair to the game.

[MassachusettsRef]

I know where you're going Mass, but why should the caution buy us something? It was Garlick who decided to cheat. I'd ask hime why he'd do something so foolish with the game pretty much decided. In the context of the league where caution points add up, deciding not to give the caution could have an affect later on. In some cases where there is a more subjective decision to be made, I can see using this approach to a degree. However, this is a clear situation where a player made a definate decision to cheat in a most foul manner. I don't see flexibility here. To me, this wouldn't be fair to the game.Bill, I would agree with your overarching sentiment if I agreed with your specific statement that "Garlick decided to cheat". In my mind, he was making a play on the ball and got beat, thereby committing a careless foul. He did not cynically lift an arm or reach his leg out after Ruiz beat him. He just got to the ball late and fouled him. A red if Ruiz doesn't get up? Absolutely. But DOGSO can be from a 'careless' foul.

I'm making two arguments here:

1) why bother adding insult and cautioning Garlick when it really "gets you" nothing?

AND, if you don't buy that line of thinking:

2) why are people assuming that a DOGSO red card scenario gets automatically "downgraded" to a caution if the goal is still scored? This is not a tactical foul and, in my opinion, not a reckless foul. It was a late, careless challenge that would have been a red IF it was DOGSO. Since it wasn't DOGSO, and the foul was only careless (in my opinion and, seemingly, in the refs opinion as well), there's no need for a caution (even if you reject my first argument).

[Ref Flunkie]

1) why bother adding insult and cautioning Garlick when it really "gets you" nothing?


I guess it depends who are you are talking about when it comes to "getting anything". In this single match context, it gets you nothing. In the overall league context when it comes to accumulating cautions and deterring future behavior, I think it does get you something...again just my opinion.



2) why are people assuming that a DOGSO red card scenario gets automatically "downgraded" to a caution if the goal is still scored?

Because I was told so by ussoccer.com :). Again ask 10 referees a question and get 10 different opinions comes into play yet again. I guess my other view of the play was that if this tackle had happened at midfield by a field player, where the defender slid into the attackers front, whiping him out and missing the ball entirely, but then the attacker gets back up and keeps possession...I would think that would warrent a caution as well after the play concluded. I can see where a caution would not be issued if a DOGSO was a pathetic attempt that was easily shrugged off, but in this case our attacking friend was taken totally out of the play. This is what brought me to the caution decision, not simply that it could have been DOGSO.

[Crowdie]

2) why are people assuming that a DOGSO red card scenario gets automatically "downgraded" to a caution if the goal is still scored?

There seems to be a difference in how some countries decide if a DOGSO situation occured.

We have been taught that if a player is brought down in a DOGSO style situation but the ball goes on to another attacking player who scores then a goal has not been denied so the DOGSO offence didn't occur. This means that you only have to look at the tackle and ignore the DOGSO - ie is the tackle by itself worth a yellow or red?

I remember a US referee on one of the threads saying that he had been taught that in the above situation it would still be a DOGSO situation as the individual player had been denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Crowdie