DOGSO Advantage

A yellow card should have been issued as the red turns into a yellow once the advantage is played on a DOGSO. And no, the advantage is the player taking the shot, not whether the goal is scored or not. It isn't the referee's fault the attacker screwed the pooch. That said, if I had this scenario in the clip, I'm not sure I would've been that quick to throw my arms up. I'd at least wait until the attacker got to the ball.

Per the 2018-19 LOTG changes section:

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

EXPLANATION: If the referee plays advantage for a DOGSO and a goal is scored it is a YC but technically if no goal results the Law said it should be a RC. This is never applied and is not seen as ‘fair’ as applying the advantage effectively means that a goal-scoring opportunity remains; consequently, a YC is the fairest sanction, whether or not a goal is scored.

 

Except in the clip above it’s not DOGSO, it’s just a foul. You have three other defenders arriving at close range among other factors. But it’s definitely a good application of advantage.

 

This checks all the dogso boxes for me. And I would have a yellow for the unsporting nature of the tackle even if it didn’t. So, either way the initial foul gets a caution.

If wondolowski had been fouled or advantage otherwise unrealized, the initial foul should be a send off.

Even though I’m a fan of the indicate-when-realized style of advantage signaling, I don’t mind the early indication here: he needed to let everyone know he has the foul and this is as good a way as any. The only thing I wish he had done differently would have been to run through the area with his hands still up and give a little skip or two mike dean style.

 

Gotta also disagree - looks like clear DOGSO if advantage not applied.

 

I don’t have it in front of me, but I’m pretty sure the old ATR has a subsection on MDAG (Mike Dean Advantage on a Goal).

 

Naah, that was in the Guide to Procedures.

 

That's the thing... I don't think the referee played advantage there. He was "waiting and seeing" but there was nothing close to an advantage there as the player basically took a shitty shot as he was stumbling to the ground. This is a good call for me.

 

As I understand it, if the advantage does not ensue, it’s still red. Waiting is not applying advantage, waiting is a delay that was added in so that referees did not have to make the decision as quickly as to whether to apply advantage.

 

Yup. DOGSO doesn't get much easier than that.

 

Great call from Sibiga. The foul clearly kept Martinez from a very good chance on goal. This was a pretty weak shot and an easy save because Martinez was off balance from the foul. If Robles misses the shot and it goes in, then it’s a goal and a caution.

I think Sibiga is a really good official. This was another example of good refereeing from him.

 

I’m a little curious about this choice of terms... I guess that advantage is something “earned” by an attacker by playing through a foul and you “grant” it by not enforcing the foul immediately.

But whether it’s “wait and see” or “apply advantage but pull it back if not truly realized” boils down to if what happens immediately after is better for the fouled team than having the free kick. Don’t get caught up in the semantics of it, just focus on the philosophy of it, and justice will be done. In either of the cases presented (yours and the op), the advantage indication (in the first case) or lack of one (second) in no way limits the referee in doing what is right for the team that got fouled.

 

Well put. The whole idea of applying advantage is about not rewarding the offending team for foul play. Saying Martinez had an advantage to keep playing after the foul would only benefit the defending team and is contrary to Law 5.

 

But he kept the ball!

Seriously, I completely agree. I think too often folks lose sight of what it means to be more advantageous--it means an opportunity better than the FK (or PK). No way is a stumbling stab better than the FK at the top of the PA.

On a side note, I know we've had discussions on this before, but for those who get the top level USSF guidance, has there been a preference expressed in training between signalling advantage right away or waiting until it ensues? Or is it still being taught that both are acceptable? (I find that I sometimes wait, but will call advantage immediately if I find it important to let people know I saw the foul. I'm comfortable with what I do, but curious if there has been anything official.)

 

I'm not sure about the US, but in Canada, the directive (as of two years ago I believe?) is to on give the signal once the advantage actually accrues. It doesn't preclude a referee from using their voice with the players to let him know that it's been seen and we're waiting to see if a goal is directly scored/etc.

 

I’m not sure any official guidance exists though if I had to guess for “TV” purposes the delayed signal looks better.

In practicality both have their pros and cons. In an amateur heated game letting the fouled player and anyone listening and watching, know they have an advantage about to occur might prevent retaliation.

In a calmer more fluid game the delayed response looks much better. To each their own.

 

As a side note does anyone have official documentation regarding the “only a goal is an advantage to a PK”. The topic came up at our Presidents Cup this past weekend. I’m pretty sure the old ATR had it in writing even going so far as to allow two bites of the apple so to speak.

Is the concept still the current advice, has it evolved into something similar but different, or is it completely subjective at this point?

 

I can't find the USSF guidance, but in AYSO, it is the guidance to not play advantage in the penalty area.

 

I think that may be a little overstated (or local) for AYSO. AYSO is part of USSF, so when USSF was teaching "silent advantage" and "the only advantage in the PA is a goal" that was also the AYSO teaching. So it's not quite that there is no advantage, but that there is no advantage signal--or put another way, the signal for advantage in the PA is to signal for a goal.

As far at the USSF guidance, I've never seen anything retracting what was the clear instruction that the only advantage in the PA is a goal. Conceptually, that is an overstatement--it is possible (but very rare) to have a better scoring chance than a PK available after the foul. I think USSF went with the absolute from a fear of referees applying advantage to a scoring chance that was far less advantageous than a PK.

For me (and I only do AYSO), I'm sticking with the old USSF guidance on this until someone instructs otherwise, and giving the PK unless there is an immediate goal. (And yes, like many who ref youth games, I've had coaches scream about not calling a PK when a goal immediately scored. )

 

I think one of the top three or four loudest screams I've ever gotten from a coach was in a HS varsity boys game when I gave a PK after an off-balance shot went wide following a foul in front of the goal that I slow-whistled.

"You can't give a PK! You called advantage!" "I didn't call advantage coach." "Yes you did! You signaled for it." "Coach I know I didn't signal advantage because I never ever signal advantage in the penalty area." "Well you saw the foul and didn't call it! I saw you see it! You can't give him a second chance!" "It was a foul in the area coach. It's a PK."