DOGSO-Part 1,453

[Ref Flunkie]

Ok, just because we can never get enough DOGSO questions, this is what happened in todays U-14B game, and I would like to see if I did the right thing or not. Here is the play in question:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v627/cseubert/Play.jpg

Blue player fouled Red player from the side. Red player was at the position shown and going straight as indicated. Straight would have taken him about 10-15 yards to the side of the goal. I only cautioned the blue player because IMO, the direction rule of the 4Ds was not completed. I know I know, MassRef et al. hate this "requirement" that all 4Ds be met. However, in this case I did not think the red player had started what I would call an OGSO, since he was 10-15 yards wide of the net and still going straight ahead. Any thoughts on this? I admit it was close, but in my opinion, if you are not 100% in a OGSO, you should not give the red. I of course got much grief from the Red team :).

[Statesman]

I don't think any scoring opportunity in a U14B game can really be deemed "obvious." They can be 2 feet away from an open net and put it over the top.

That being said, what does your gut tell you? Does it say that without the foul a goal would be scored? Or that the player would have an open shot on the net?

If yes, then you send the player off. If not, he stays. Sounds from your description that your gut told you it wasn't a send-off offense. Works for me. Just make sure your brain isn't rationalizing away something that your gut tells you is right.

[blind_clown]

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 player¹s 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.

However, in the final analysis, it is all in the opinion of the referee.


If he's moving in a manner controlled enough that I am 100% certain he can turn towards the goal (without the foul) and he's running parallel to the touchline or towards center, I'd probably say send off. It would also depend on where the defender was at the foul: between him and the goal or already left behind. This is one you really have to see to say for sure and even then you'll get a bunch of different answers.

[Ref Flunkie]

See, when I saw the play, my gut didn't even have me thinking it was DOGSO. Basically the defender was coming from behind at an angle, but caught up and on the challenge, he came from the side, made a play at the ball with his leg, but simply missed it and committed the foul (I honestly don't think he was simply there to take out the man). I would say had the attacker not fouled him, but kept running with him, he would have had a shot on net, but not something again I would say was an "obvious goal scoring opportunity", more of a "Oooo, I hope the keeper misses it" shot. No way he could have turned and made a more direct line at the goal if the attacker had decided to play the conservative route and just ran along side him. I mean, it would have been on his left foot for goodness sakes, and you know how good they are at using THAT at that age! :)

I was thinking about your point blind_clown, and I must ask, can we penalize for something that might happen (the defender actually turning toward the goal) or do we penalize for what they are doing at the time of the foul (not going directly toward the goal, but attacking). It's funny, I heard MassRef's voice in my head (not that I know what he sounds like) saying "I hate that USSF requires ALL 4D's to be met in order for it to be a red card!!!". I mean, I'm not the type to shy away from a send off because it will "effect the game", but I just wanted to see if I was totally nuts in my thinking or what.

[blech]

although it doesn't make complete sense, certainly justifiable under the "direction" component to not show the red in this case.

frankly, i saw 2 take downs in the box today by last defenders that resulted in pk's but no card, and left scratching my head as to what some refs believe is required to find an OGSO. your example was certainly nowhere near as "obvious" as those. agree or not (i don't personally), the "D's" control the analysis, and until the forward has made that turn to be heading directly at the goal, it seems correct to keep the red in the pocket, unless the foul otherwise deserves it on its own.

[whitehound]

although it doesn't make complete sense, certainly justifiable under the "direction" component to not show the red in this case.

frankly, i saw 2 take downs in the box today by last defenders that resulted in pk's but no card, and left scratching my head as to what some refs believe is required to find an OGSO. your example was certainly nowhere near as "obvious" as those. agree or not (i don't personally), the "D's" control the analysis, and until the forward has made that turn to be heading directly at the goal, it seems correct to keep the red in the pocket, unless the foul otherwise deserves it on its own.Dude, just because you see people make mistakes and missapply the law does not mean it is okay to do the same to a lesser degree.

[jkdd77]

In England we use Uefa's interpretation of DOGSO, rather than the more rigid 4D's.

This would probably have been a red card in England, although it is very marginal.

Nonetheless, I think the referee could probably sell the call either way, particularly as the foul appears to have been clumsy rather than malicious .

[Ref Flunkie]

Nonetheless, I think the referee could probably sell the call either way, particularly as the foul appears to have been clumsy rather than malicious .

Yeah that was my feeling. It was a hard challenge, and if it had been from behind with either a tackle or a grab of the shirt, I may have thought differently. My problem (not sure if this is true for all) is that I do not run into many DOGSO situations. I have run into one easy one which I sent off a player for, but I do not see "close" ones very often (hence the reason I asked the question). Thanks for the input all!