Dogso-h

[chrisrun]

I know, another one of these...

In the Metro-DC game on Saturday, there was a free kick taken by DC just outside the box. The defensive wall was set up near the penalty spot, and as the kick was taken, the defender on the end of the wall stuck his arm out and deflected the ball so that it bounced off the post, rather than heading towards the center of the goal. Who knows if the goalie would have had it, but it was a pretty hard shot.

Nothing was called during the game, as the ref must have missed it. But if he did see it, it would have been a PK. Could this have also been a red card? The defender didn't knock the ball off the goal line, which is the normal place you would see this card. But he was the last defender (I guess - he was in a wall parallel to the goal line), he did handle the ball near the goal (maybe 8 yards away), and the ball was definitely heading towards the goal.

[aevange8]

First you need to decide wheter there was handling, or if it was incidental or not deliberate then your answer would be no. The referee in the aformentioned match may have seen the contact with the hand, but did not feel that it could have been avoided (I didn't see the incident). There are plenty of threads talking about this, and much advice from USSF, FIFA, the FA, and etc....

Once you have decided there was handling, you need to determine whether it was also misconduct. This is where the ITOOTR (in the opinion of the referee) comes in. If you felt it was an easy save for the keeper, perhaps no ejection (as the goal scoring opportunity wasnt so obvious.) Then you can decide if you want to book for unsporting behavior or if the awarding of the penalty kick within itself did the justice. The location of the defender can be 2, 6, 12 or however many yards from the goal line you wish, the same criteria always applies.

[macheath]

I know, another one of these...

In the Metro-DC game on Saturday, there was a free kick taken by DC just outside the box. The defensive wall was set up near the penalty spot, and as the kick was taken, the defender on the end of the wall stuck his arm out and deflected the ball so that it bounced off the post, rather than heading towards the center of the goal. Who knows if the goalie would have had it, but it was a pretty hard shot.

Nothing was called during the game, as the ref must have missed it. But if he did see it, it would have been a PK. Could this have also been a red card? The defender didn't knock the ball off the goal line, which is the normal place you would see this card. But he was the last defender (I guess - he was in a wall parallel to the goal line), he did handle the ball near the goal (maybe 8 yards away), and the ball was definitely heading towards the goal.

Yup, a red. The guy hits the ball with two fists, balled up and held close to his stomach, but he turns out into the ball, extends his hands slightly from his stomach, ball deflects off the post. Clear handling and DOGSO. Ref missed it.

[BC_Ref]

Yup, a red. The guy hits the ball with two fists, balled up and held close to his stomach, but he turns out into the ball, extends his hands slightly from his stomach, ball deflects off the post. Clear handling and DOGSO. Ref missed it.

If I'm reading you right, my take is that, absent the hands, the ball would have struck the stomach of the defender. Therefore, I could see a non-DOGSO (the player's body prevented the goal, not the handling). I can hairsplit with the best :) But seriously, the flight path of the ball is critical in DOGSO-H since test has always been explained to me that, if you remove the hands, would a goal have been scored or likely scored? Yes/No

[ManiacalClown]

If I'm reading you right, my take is that, absent the hands, the ball would have struck the stomach of the defender. Therefore, I could see a non-DOGSO (the player's body prevented the goal, not the handling). I can hairsplit with the best :) But seriously, the flight path of the ball is critical in DOGSO-H since test has always been explained to me that, if you remove the hands, would a goal have been scored or likely scored? Yes/No

Agreed. You have a case for handling since the player seemed to intentionally change the trajectory of the ball with his arms, but not DOGSO since the ball's original trajectory would not have taken the ball to the goal.

[chrisrun]

If I'm reading you right, my take is that, absent the hands, the ball would have struck the stomach of the defender. Therefore, I could see a non-DOGSO (the player's body prevented the goal, not the handling). I can hairsplit with the best :) But seriously, the flight path of the ball is critical in DOGSO-H since test has always been explained to me that, if you remove the hands, would a goal have been scored or likely scored? Yes/No

Actually, the the defender stuck his hand off to the side to hit the ball. It would have flown past him had he not done so. So I would have to say Yes. See the video below, at about the 2:00 mark of the hightlights.

Link (Metro v United, week ending 10/09) is on the sights and sounds page of mlsnet.com.
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/

[uniteo]

Actually, the the defender stuck his hand off to the side to hit the ball. It would have flown past him had he not done so. So I would have to say Yes. See the video below, at about the 2:00 mark of the hightlights.

Link (Metro v United, week ending 10/09) is on the sights and sounds page of mlsnet.com.
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/

And how in the world did the ref miss that, he seemed to be in the perfect position

[BC_Ref]

Actually, the the defender stuck his hand off to the side to hit the ball. It would have flown past him had he not done so. So I would have to say Yes. See the video below, at about the 2:00 mark of the hightlights.

Link (Metro v United, week ending 10/09) is on the sights and sounds page of mlsnet.com.
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/

Then unfortunately, Houston, we have a problem.

[macheath]

Actually, the the defender stuck his hand off to the side to hit the ball. It would have flown past him had he not done so. So I would have to say Yes. See the video below, at about the 2:00 mark of the hightlights.

Link (Metro v United, week ending 10/09) is on the sights and sounds page of mlsnet.com.
http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/

Thanks, Chris. This is what I tried (and failed) to explain. It isn't that the ball went directly into the wall. Rather, it was flying just past the wall, and the outside defender in the wall turned his body, slightly extended his fists from his stomach, and punched/redirected the ball to where it hit the post. Ball was clearly on goal until that. That was the basis for my saying a definite red. I have no idea how the ref missed this. (Those darn refs! Why can't they catch everything??)

[ManiacalClown]

Thanks, Chris. This is what I tried (and failed) to explain. It isn't that the ball went directly into the wall. Rather, it was flying just past the wall, and the outside defender in the wall turned his body, slightly extended his fists from his stomach, and punched/redirected the ball to where it hit the post. Ball was clearly on goal until that. That was the basis for my saying a definite red. I have no idea how the ref missed this. (Those darn refs! Why can't they catch everything??)

I'd have to agree with your assessment considering the video evidence. The referee may well have deemed the handling to be incidental as a result of protecting his cahones, though. Who knows? :)

[refontherun]

The only problem I have with DOGSO is there is another defender to the left and behind the keeper. The first of the 3 d's - "not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender commiting the foul". Correct me if I'm missing something or does this not apply to handling. Also, IMO it would have appeared to be an easy save by the keeper had the handling not taken place. Surely a yellow card for putting the game into dispute had any of the referees seen the infraction.

IMHO, the referee could have positioned himself a little deeper toward the goal-line to have a better view of that play. He still may not have seen the deflection, but from where he was, he couldn't see what was going on behind the wall either.

[macheath]

The only problem I have with DOGSO is there is another defender to the left and behind the keeper. The first of the 3 d's - "not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender commiting the foul". Correct me if I'm missing something or does this not apply to handling. Also, IMO it would have appeared to be an easy save by the keeper had the handling not taken place. Surely a yellow card for putting the game into dispute had any of the referees seen the infraction..(snip)

Oops. You're absolutely right. Went back and looked at the replay, and a Metro defender on the opposite end of the wall drops quickly back to the far post at the whistle, before the ball is kicked. So there are two defenders back, no DOGSO. My bad. I was looking at the wall, focused only on the kick and the handling, didn't see the far side defender drop back. Good lesson in trying to keep the whole field in view.

[MassachusettsRef]

And thus illustrates another problem I have with the "4 Ds".

What on earth does that person on the post have to do with this particular situation? If it weren't for the 4 Ds, we wouldn't give him a second thought (and some of us don't, at first glance, even with the 4 Ds). He has no chance to make a play on the ball, yet he negates what would otherwise be a red card?

What's more cynical than deliberately handling a goal-bound free kick from 20 yards out? "Goal-scoring opportunities" don't get much more obvious than this. This sort of play is exactly the scenario that the original "red card for professional foul" clause was written for in the early 1990s. But, with the narrow interpretation of the 4 Ds, in the US we're not supposed to sanction this with anything more than a yellow (handling that stops attacking play).

The more I think about it, the more I think the 4 Ds should either disappear, or be re-written as guidelines with the caveat that all 4 Ds must not always be met for a goal-scoring opportunity to be "obvious". I don't see either happening, though.

As an aside, doesn't UEFA have six bullet points that were adopted at one of their summits in the past few years? And are those mandatory components of a DOGSO, or simply guidelines?

[MassachusettsRef]

As an aside, doesn't UEFA have six bullet points that were adopted at one of their summits in the past few years? And are those mandatory components of a DOGSO, or simply guidelines?Answered my own question. From the Madrid 2004 UEFA Referee Conclusions and Recommendations (I believe these are akin to our ATR, and have the force of law under UEFA competitions):

11. It was emphasised that in addition to the determination of the seriousness of the offence, referees must take into account the circumstances in which the offence has been committed:

Was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity denied (red-card offence)?
Was a promising attacking move prevented (yellow card offence)?

The following criteria were agreed for determining if an offence denied an
obvious goal-scoring opportunity:
§ Possibility to control the ball.
§ Position of the attacker.
§ Direction of movement (the attacker and ball).
§ Distance to the goal line.
§ Position of the defenders / goalkeeper.
§ Was the attack very likely to produce a goal had it not been stopped by
an offence punishable by a free kick (or a penalty kick)?

The following criteria were agreed for determining if there was a promising
attacking move stopped by an offence:
§ Position of the offence.
§ The player’s chance of playing ball.
§ Position of his teammates.
§ Position of the opponents.
§ Distance to goal.
§ Was the attack likely to develop in next few seconds had it not been
stopped by an offence?

[Ref Flunkie]

Answered my own question. From the Madrid 2004 UEFA Referee Conclusions and Recommendations (I believe these are akin to our ATR, and have the force of law under UEFA competitions):


Just keep talking to yourself MassRef ;). Ok, so it sounds like the UEFA notes simply say these are things that need to be CONSIDERED, yes? A referee is in charge of determining, after considering all the mentioned criteria, if it is an OGSO or not.

[chrisrun]

Oops. You're absolutely right. Went back and looked at the replay, and a Metro defender on the opposite end of the wall drops quickly back to the far post at the whistle, before the ball is kicked. So there are two defenders back, no DOGSO. My bad. I was looking at the wall, focused only on the kick and the handling, didn't see the far side defender drop back. Good lesson in trying to keep the whole field in view.
But the guidline for the 4 Ds says "not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul".

I would say that this defender that dropped back was not between the foul and the goal, thus would not factor into the equation. The attacker still only had the fouling player and the goalkeeper to beat with his shot.

[njref]

"The following criteria were agreed for determining if there was a promising
attacking move stopped by an offence:
§ Position of the offence.
§ The player’s chance of playing ball.
§ Position of his teammates.
§ Position of the opponents.
§ Distance to goal.
§ Was the attack likely to develop in next few seconds had it not been
stopped by an offence?"

What is the relevance of a "promising attacking move stopped by an offence?"

There was a similar list of factors for DOGSO, so what does this list help us with? Is this supposed to be an alternative grounds for a RC in addition to DOGSO?

[MassachusettsRef]

What is the relevance of a "promising attacking move stopped by an offence?"

There was a similar list of factors for DOGSO, so what does this list help us with? Is this supposed to be an alternative grounds for a RC in addition to DOGSO?They are guidelines for when to give a yellow card for "tactical fouls" (Ub.1.d in our 7+7). Guidelines that, to my knowledge, we don't have in USSF.

All in all, the biggest difference seems to be, as Ref Flunkie points out, that these are all guidelines to consider and that the discretion ultimately rests with the referee as to whether or not a goal was very likely to result in DOGSO scenarioes. If that is true (bullet #6), then a referee can still pull a red card for DOGSO even if all of the previous 5 bullets aren't met. It's just that #6 is much more likely to be met if 1-5 are also met.

In the US, on the other hand, we've been instructed that you CANNOT have DOGSO unless all 4 D's are met. Basically, we are given an ironcast set of rules but are still able (some might say encouraged) to look for a reason NOT to give the red card. Whereas in Europe, the guidelines are given as to how to interpret DOGSO, but all discretion rests with the referee. Honestly, I think the UEFA interpretation makes more sense. The 4 D's seemed to have come out of thin air a few years ago.

[macheath]

(snip)...
In the US, on the other hand, we've been instructed that you CANNOT have DOGSO unless all 4 D's are met. Basically, we are given an ironcast set of rules but are still able (some might say encouraged) to look for a reason NOT to give the red card. Whereas in Europe, the guidelines are given as to how to interpret DOGSO, but all discretion rests with the referee. Honestly, I think the UEFA interpretation makes more sense. The 4 D's seemed to have come out of thin air a few years ago.

Agreed. It may have been the perceived need to give hard and fast rules, which is what we like in America, because then we can argue and litigate about them... :)

Seriously, I agree with the spirit of this discussion. There should be strong guidelines, with the ref making the final call (as is generally the case in the LOTG). But, as MassRef points out here, we've been given instructions. Thus I agree that, even with the back post defender in the case under discussion, this handling deserved a red. But, as I read the instructions from USSF, a red can't be given (even though it should), due to that back post defender. The "four Ds" don't say anything about involved in play, etc.--just the defender's position. Best result allowable would appear to be a PK and a yellow.

[chrisrun]

Looked back at Jim Allen's website. Timely answer on a different but similar handling situation. He says for DOGSO-Handling, you don't need the 4 Ds. Only for DOGSO-Foul.

USSF answer (August 29, 2005):
"There is already a send-off offense for deliberate handling, number 4 under the seven send-off offenses: denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area). It does not require any particular alignment of players for either team, but simply the occurrence of the offense.

We are not aware of any offenses that might occur under send-off reason number 5 ("denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick") that would not require that all of the 4 Ds be included."