Right call vs. Correct call, can this be fixed.

[Sagy]

I think that in the cases below both CRs made the right call for the game, I’m just not sure how to explain them as the correct calls by the LOTG.

FC Dallas – DC United; in the 55th min (Dal leading 1:0), Ruiz is pushed form behind in front of an empty net (see video ( http://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/11504/v0001/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2005/open/topplays/archive05/052805_fcddcu_ruiz_goals_384.wmv), middle of the clip) the CR call a PK, but doesn’t pull a card. If this is a DOGSO (how can it be not) then how do we explain not giving a red card to the defender?

Chicago Fire – Real Salt Lake; in the 62nd min (Chi leading 2:0), Pierce (SLC) hits/pushes Caballero (Chi) in the Real box after the ball is cleared. The CR pulls a Yellow card, but doesn’t award Chicago a PK (the ball was about 30 away from the goal). Since the ball was in play and the foul was committed in the box how can a cardable(sp?) offence not result in a PK?

Would these issues be resolved if the wording were to change from “Mandatory” card/PK to “Strongly recommended” (or something along these lines). This will still allow the game to be called as it is today, but will give the CR an option of giving a lesser punishment if that is warranted. For example, this will allow a CR to give a player a second YC without having to pull a RC (the CR will still be allowed to pull a RC if he thinks that this is the proper call).

I think that this will fix some problems we see with today’s game calling. However, it might put an additional unfair(?) pressure on the CR Opinions?

[Statesman]

I think that in the cases below both CRs made the right call for the game, I’m just not sure how to explain them as the correct calls by the LOTG.

FC Dallas – DC United; in the 55th min (Dal leading 1:0), Ruiz is pushed form behind in front of an empty net (see video ( http://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/11504/v0001/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2005/open/topplays/archive05/052805_fcddcu_ruiz_goals_384.wmv), middle of the clip) the CR call a PK, but doesn’t pull a card. If this is a DOGSO (how can it be not) then how do we explain not giving a red card to the defender?

Chicago Fire – Real Salt Lake; in the 62nd min (Chi leading 2:0), Pierce (SLC) hits/pushes Caballero (Chi) in the Real box after the ball is cleared. The CR pulls a Yellow card, but doesn’t award Chicago a PK (the ball was about 30 away from the goal). Since the ball was in play and the foul was committed in the box how can a cardable(sp?) offence not result in a PK?


To me there is no real discussion here. The CRs were simply wrong (big surprise). I wouldn't recommend changing the laws simply to make up for the lack of courage in the majority of MLS referees. We just need USSF to get serious about promoting good officials through the ranks instead of politics. Until then, expect to keep seeing this crap in MLS.

[NJ Ref]

Sagy, being an MLS guy, you have to walk a tightrope….satisfy the "Laws" and the league. Look at Gieger on the DC game maybe three weeks ago…he awarded three PK’s…and rightfully so. However, the league came down on him and now his future as an MLS guy is questionable. You have to satisfy both ends of the candle while still not getting burnt. Doesn’t surprise me that no PK’s were called….again, the league doesn’t want to see them. So…..you take a little heat from the end-game assessment and, because the league isn’t PO’ed, you get to ref again. Pity

[brhsoccer14]

For your first scenario, if I remember the video correctly.... I think he was right there. DOGSO has to fulfill 4 elements. Distance to goal, distance to ball, number of defenders and direction. I think it gets 3, but the player's direction to the goal wasn't there is the only reason I can think of, if I remember correctly, I have to see again.

For the second one, I think he stopped play for misconduct, but no foul was called in that. He gave the caution and probably restarted with an IFK in the box.

Someone wish to correct me?

[JoseP]

FC Dallas – DC United; in the 55th min (Dal leading 1:0), Ruiz is pushed form behind in front of an empty net (see video ( http://a1503.v115042.c11504.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1503/11504/v0001/mlbmls.download.akamai.com/11504/2005/open/topplays/archive05/052805_fcddcu_ruiz_goals_384.wmv), middle of the clip) the CR call a PK, but doesn’t pull a card. If this is a DOGSO (how can it be not) then how do we explain not giving a red card to the defender?



Perhaps the ref realized he just made a poor call and decided not to compound his error by throwing a card.

[HeadHunter]

Perhaps the ref realized he just made a poor call and decided not to compound his error by throwing a card.


Please don't be so fanblind yeah several andgles suggest that the contact was minimal, but that odd jump forward that Namoff does clearly initiates enough contact to draw a PK. The offside issue is one that you can't get at all from the camera angles there.

As to the original question, the 4Ds seem satisfied here. Im suprised there was no card shown. On the otherhand there do exist some fouls that are potentially DOGSO where you really hate to give a red. In those situations, usually I find reason not to think that one of the Ds-usually distance-had been satisfied.

[NHRef]

From the video mentioned, the 4th D "direction" is NOT there, the ball was on a path to miss the net, the players were as well since they were chasing the ball. After the foul the ball continues on wide of the net, not DOGSO.

[Steve Long]

As I sat in the Press Box at RFK, I wondered the same thing. After some thought and discussion with Namoff in the locker room, I suspect that the CR rationalized that the ball was on the way out from a Namoff toe poke an instant before the contact was made. Namoff admitted that the call was a tough one that could have gone either way.

Steve Long www.cybersoccernews.com

[ref47]

on case 1, the shot was already away before the foul and was going wide. therefore, unless the attacker could have run on the ball and redirected it on goal, there was no denial of a goal scoring op.
on case 2, see atr 12.25, restarts for misconduct. as there was no foul on this play, and the ball was in play at the time, the restart should be ifk to the offended team, even in the pa.

[gosellit]

Scenario #2

Law 12 — Fouls and Misconduct
Part A. Fouls
12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL?
A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team,
on the field of play, while the ball is in play.Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the
opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these three requirements is not met, the
action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct.

Based on the facts given above, there is a foul and should have resulted in a PK.

[kevbrunton]

I agree with those saying that the direction does not exist for the Ruiz foul for it to be DOGSO. The ball was already going out wide before the foul. He MIGHT have been able to get to it, but it's not clear and I wouldn't give a red card unless it's clear.

On the Fire game, I was wondering how he can give the card without a PK and was interested in how he would write it up.

In the report posted in MLS, he records Caution - Pushing, Holding. I'm not sure how you can caution someone for pushing/holding without it being a penalty. Quite frankly, I can't remember how the game was restarted. It took so long to get restarted and I was so baffled by it, that I forget what happened.

I'd be very curious is anyone ever saw where Mr. Herron made any comments on the call. Also, I know that he talked extensively to Chris Armas about the call during the game, so if anyone sees any comments from Chris about how Herron explained the call to him at the time, it would be interesting to read them.

[edit] - I now see over in the Fire forum that Peter Wilt commented on this - probably with the info from Chris. Peter said that the referee claimed he was calling a foul AGAINST Chicago first and THEN saw the elbow / retaliation and gave the yellow card. My question now is, given that I can't remember the restart, did it restart with an RSL kick coming out?

[IASocFan]

Scenario #2

My thoughts: As far as the game was concerned, the foul was triffling. The ball was 30 yds. away. As far as misconduct, it needed to be dealt with. HENCE. yellow card - USB, IFK from the spot of the ball.

[kevbrunton]

Scenario #2

My thoughts: As far as the game was concerned, the foul was triffling. The ball was 30 yds. away. As far as misconduct, it needed to be dealt with. HENCE. yellow card - USB, IFK from the spot of the ball.
Yes - I understand this - but what WAS the restart? Was it a Chicago IFK going in or was it a RSL DK coming out?

[Sagy]

Yes - I understand this - but what WAS the restart? Was it a Chicago IFK going in or was it a RSL DK coming out?It was a RSL kick (I assume it was a direct kick).

Watching the game on TV (which is not always accurate), it seems to me like the whistle was very late if the original call was against Chicago. It looked to me like he was trying to give the YC - which was the right call, but not award the PK. The "out" was to call an earlier foul against Chi.

As far as the Dal-DC game. I trust that the people here are correct on the four Ds. My problem is that this means that if an attacker gets the ball passed a GK in a one-on-one by taping the ball wide and he gets tripped by the GK; it is not DOGSO since the direction is missing as well - this seems wrong.

What I would like to know from the referees that read this thread, is if they would like the LOTG to be changed so there is less "mandatory" and more option for the CR?

[ref47]

no change needed on this. on the direction issue, you have going directly to goal and 180 degrees going away from goal - and in between. so, if the direction is close to direct, and if the attacker would have a play on the ball if unmolested, then rc. if less than direct and little chance of a play, just the fk/pk and maybe a yc.

[kevbrunton]

It was a RSL kick (I assume it was a direct kick).

Watching the game on TV (which is not always accurate), it seems to me like the whistle was very late if the original call was against Chicago. It looked to me like he was trying to give the YC - which was the right call, but not award the PK. The "out" was to call an earlier foul against Chi.

As far as the Dal-DC game. I trust that the people here are correct on the four Ds. My problem is that this means that if an attacker gets the ball passed a GK in a one-on-one by taping the ball wide and he gets tripped by the GK; it is not DOGSO since the direction is missing as well - this seems wrong.

What I would like to know from the referees that read this thread, is if they would like the LOTG to be changed so there is less "mandatory" and more option for the CR?
I agree with ref47 on no changes in the law needed.

As for your question on direction - none of the 4 D's stand alone except (possibly) # of defenders. Direction, distance to goal and distance to ball must all be considered in concert. If the ball is 2 yds from the end line, wide of the net and the direction is straight up the field and you are 1.5 yards from the ball, then the direction may not support a DOGSO call. However, if the ball is 15 yds from the end line, approximately in line with a post with the ball angling slightly away from the net but still upfield and you are still 1 yard from the ball when taken down by the keeper (like you hypothesized), then you are still close enough to the ball and the ball is still far enough out from the net to make the angles work - hence you will most often you get a DOGSO on this type of situation.

[MassachusettsRef]

no change needed on this. on the direction issue, you have going directly to goal and 180 degrees going away from goal - and in between. so, if the direction is close to direct, and if the attacker would have a play on the ball if unmolested, then rc. if less than direct and little chance of a play, just the fk/pk and maybe a yc.I agree, with a slight modification. I think you have a range of 0-90 degrees to deal with. Anything within that scope is, to varying extents, going "towards" goal. The closer to '0', the more likely that the goal-scoring opportunity is "obvious", the closer to '90' (ie, square across the field), the less so.

It seems impossible to classify anything above 90 degrees though, as going "towards goal".

[MassachusettsRef]

As for your question on direction - none of the 4 D's stand alone except (possibly) # of defenders. Direction, distance to goal and distance to ball must all be considered in concert. If the ball is 2 yds from the end line, wide of the net and the direction is straight up the field and you are 1.5 yards from the ball, then the direction may not support a DOGSO call. However, if the ball is 15 yds from the end line, approximately in line with a post with the ball angling slightly away from the net but still upfield and you are still 1 yard from the ball when taken down by the keeper (like you hypothesized), then you are still close enough to the ball and the ball is still far enough out from the net to make the angles work - hence you will most often you get a DOGSO on this type of situation.I agree with your sentiment and you give an excellent hypothetical example. Also, even the # defenders doesn't necessarily stand alone.

In a match that I was an AR on, I had a CR who didn't send off a goalkeeper for a foul just outside the PA (player was going to goal, it was in the middle of the field, and the ball was one yard in front of him) because there was a defender who had managed to backtrack from the wing to be in a position behind the goalkeeper. He reasoned that, since there was still a defender to beat, there couldn't be DOGSO. My reasoning--that if the roles had been reversed (defender fouls, goalkeeper back), it would be a clear DOGSO, and that this instance was even more obvious, since a defender can't legally defend the goal with his hands--fell on deaf ears.

My point? The "4 D's" memo (and the similar directive from UEFA that includes 6 bullet points) is strong guidance to help us identify DOGSO and apply it with consistency. As referees we still have to use common sense: if something looks and feels like an obvious-goal scoring opportunity to us, by the Laws we are supposed to sanction it with a red card. We shouldn't be looking for "outs" by going out of our way to reason that one of the D's wasn't met.

[Statesman]

As an aside to this discussion, although somewhat relevant -

USSF is an enormously giant beast with all kinds of diversity throughout the country. As a result, it is more difficult to send communication down from the national level to the local level than in most other national associations. To facilitate this process, USSF sends out memorandums with simplifications and interpretations meant to reach the broadest of audiences. They like to come up with catchy concepts such as the "7+7" or "4D" because they are easy to teach and remember regardless of the learner's background (thank you Bloom's taxonomy).

Remember, referees range from those who know only soccer from the U10 and below level, to those who referee in the World Cup. To come up with a document that encompasses all of them is a daunting task.

Ultimately, the memorandum are designed for the referee to use as a quick check in making decisions on the field. If the referee is ever in doubt, in the case of the 4D, he can simply run through the checklist in his mind and compare the bullet points to the action that occurred. If all of them are met, it's a safe bet it's time to send the player off.

Do not confuse the memorandum criteria as being required to make the DOGSO call. As MassRef pointed out, the memorandum is trying to describe what most of us already conceive as being a "goal-scoring opportunity" simply by looking at the overall picture and relying upon our experience with the game. It does try to provide a level of standardization in making the DOGSO call so you see at least some consistency. However, I guarantee there will be instances where a DOGSO incident does not perfectly fit the 4D. Conversely, there will be an incident that perfectly fits the 4D that should not be considered DOGSO.

It's a guideline. It works nearly all of the time and is a good way to approach making the decision. However, neither it nor any USSF memorandum is meant to be considered "all-encompassing."

[brhsoccer14]

Or the direction could be used as an excue if he was asked why he didn't send the player off, but that is only speculation.