Over the weekend, I was an AR on a U-12 girls game. It was a tournament championship game between 2 very skilled teams. The blue team gets a breakaway pretty much through the center circle. The red defender is chasing blue. Blue only has the red GK to beat. When they get to the top of the penalty area (within the PK arc, still outside the penalty area), The red defender just barely touches the blue attackers heel with the toe of her shoe. I had a very good view. It was clearly careless at best. The center did stop play for the foul, but no misconduct. So, I'm wondering, given the age and skill level, do you send off the red defender for DOGSO, caution her for a tactical foul or just call the trip and get on with it? In hindsight, I'm thinking caution, but being pretty new I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks. Thanks.
I'm thinking, "These are just U12 players." And then I remember the U12 rec league player I sent off for DOGSO this season. And got considerable grief about, but the coaches were civil in their discussions with me at the time of the incident and after the game. Although in my case it was compounded by the fact that the foul itself was worthy of a caution. So just cautioning the play would have meant I was ignoring any OGSO completely.
I'd really want the context of the level of play (i.e. I'd need to be there) to say for sure but this would be very borderline for me at that age group. From what you describe, it sounds like a case where the defender simply ran up the back of the legs of the attacker (as opposed to trying to make a tackle or other play on the ball from behind). So right there I'm willing to give some leway. Also, I have come across many U12 teams that don't understand DOGSO at all. So my thought is, lets remember what DOGSO is in the books for. It is there to keep teams from using tactical fouls to prevent goals when "all else has failed" so to speak. While I know we're taught not to try and referee intent, I think some common sense and application of the spirit of the game may be appropriate in this sense. If I understand your scenario above correctly, I'd be inclined to let this one go as just a foul with a stern talking to about DOGSO to the defender. Again this is with the picture in my head of inadvertent contact only. If there was a legitimate play on the ball that led to the foul, then I'd probably caution the defender, again using this opportunity to educate him on DOGSO and letting him know he's lucky not to have been sent off. The only way I can see sending off a U12 in this situation is if I'm sure the foul was cynical/tactical in nature and to make that determination I'd need the context of having seeen the game.
Your interpretation of my description is correct. From my view, this was clearly an inadvertent touch of feet that put the attacker on the ground (ie, careless). Nothing more.
That's a tough one. Letter of the law says send her off and if I had any hint that it was anything other than an accident I would send her off. The logic that they have to learn what DOGSO is before we punish seems backwards; a good way of teaching it is to call it. I would not even consider a caution. If it would be a yellow without the OGSO then it deserves the red. The whole world saw the foul and doing nothing could create an unmanagable situation. A DFK seems like a good choice at that age.
Since this is a DOGSO, and U-12 is getting borderline where you would call this, should the center not have announced that this would be a red if this was say U-15? It is one thing to avoid carding people at this age level, but it is a travesty IMHO to not even warn them that this "should" be a red card, and it will become one as they continue to progress. Ignoring things that shouldn't be ignored without explanation leads to many of the spectator and coaching complaints that occur at higher age levels.
I understand your concern, but I would be very reticent to ever announce what I "should" be doing it when I then decide to not do it. Remember, despite the age, this is a competitive match from the description. An opposing coach could very well seize on the referee saying "by the Laws, I should be red carding you, but..." You are giving significant fuel to any sort of protest fire. Now, would a quiet word to the coach and/or player after the game, if circumstances allow and make sense, be a good thing? I think it absolutely would. But if you meant to literally "announce" that it would have been a red card, I would have to strongly disagree with that advice. EDIT: also, as the age issue in general. I think the more important focus should be skill. I've seen U12 players at the State Cup and Regional level committing tactical fouls and diving. Players know what they are doing and understand the consequences of certain actions, starting at the U10 level (if not earlier) if they are in a skill-based environment and coached and taught well (or cynically, depending on your outlook). If it's that sort of environment (and I'm not quite sure this was), then I'd have no hesitation in issuing the red for DOGSO--U12 or not, accident or not.
I feel compelled to chime in on this thread (1st time). As a state 5 and also former coach (including u12's), I feel I can look at this situation from a different perspective. As this was apparently a competitive league, these players should expect (and we should provide) competitive officiating. Given your description you describe, the referee has no choice but to send of as a DOGSO. To simply call a foul with no send off (when the 4 Ds are met)is a miscarriage of the laws. In this situation you have two choices. 1) No foul, incidental contact if that is what you believe. Expect heat, but if it truly is feet getting tangled then you have to swallow your whistle. However, if you do blow your whistle even for the slightest of careless foul then it has to be a send off. I feel most importantly, especially at the U12 competitive level, it is important that we are a part of their learning and development process. By properly applying the LOTG in their games we are contributing to their development. If this player got sent off, I am sure she would be upset but she would definately understand what a DOGSO was be more mindful the next time. Best of Luck when you are the one in the center and have to make the big decisions
"I feel most importantly, especially at the U12 competitive level, it is important that we are a part of their learning and development process. By properly applying the LOTG in their games we are contributing to their development. If this player got sent off, I am sure she would be upset but she would definately understand what a DOGSO was be more mindful the next time. Best of Luck when you are the one in the center and have to make the big decisions " I have to agree w/ you. If the tree is not planted straight to begin w/ you will not be able to straighten it 20 yrs down the road. dlb .
Great post! Basically my equation spelled out in clear, concise words!! Please come and visit us down here more.
I see your point. Regarding the 4 d's, here's what I saw: Direction of play - The attacker was heading directly toward the goal Distance to goal - 20 yards out Distance of the player to the ball - The ball was on her foot Defenders - one to beat, the GK. As I described, the only opponent even close to her was the defender directly behind her. After all the comments, I'm starting to see this as a pretty clear DOGSO. The only one that leaves doubt in my mind is the attackers ability to shoot from 20 yards, but had her heel not been clipped, there is no doubt this would have been a close-in, 1:1 with the GK. The GK had not come off her line either, so the attacker could have gone much closer.
Placed anywhere else on the field, was the heel clip a foul? It almost sounds like it wasn't a deliberate breach of the laws, thus incidental and not a foul. If it truly was a foul then it has to be DOGSO, even at this age level. If it wasn't a foul then play continues with no call at all. I'm not seeing any middle ground based on what has been written.
That confuses me somewhat , as I'm under the impression the criteria for fouls is "careless, reckless or with excessive force." So, in this case, the touching of feet (tripping) was clearly careless, so I would have called it a foul. In your example, I would have called it if it was, say, at the halfway line instead.
Your question should be "is this a foul?" Even if just careless, you have a player that clearly has the 4 D's going on and ends up on the ground instead of with a shot on goal one on one with the keeper. This clearly isn't like a U10 player bending down and picking up the ball before it goes into the net not really knowing any better. In your case, even at this age level, a serious breach of the Laws occurred and the only fair thing to do is send the player off as a goal scoring opportunity was certainly denied by a foul.
Those are the words in the LOTG but it doesn't really translate precisely. Careless just means something was a foul. Reckless means it was a foul that is cautionable. Excessive force means it's a foul that warrants a send-off. However, practically speaking the words aren't supposed to really be used literally. Essentially if you have contact between players that is truly incidental and non-deliberate then no foul is committed. You could still call it "careless" by the definition of the word, but not really by how it is interpreted within the LOTG. Somebody used the example of two players running after a free ball getting their legs tangled up. Did one player trip the other play? Sure. Was it careless? Well, neither player took that great of care to ensure it didn't happen, so you could call it that. However, there's no foul. The situation is a little different when one player is in control of the ball with another challenging, though. You could say that the challenger was ran up on the attacker in a deliberate manner that resulted in a trip out of carelessness, and thus have a foul. Or, it really could be that during the course of an otherwise legal challenge the two players got tangled up and went down with no deliberation involved, the contact being purely incidental. In that case there is nothing to call. Although you could refer to either incident as being "careless," I just wanted to clarify of what variety the action specifically fit within.
A foul ocurred The 4 D's applied A send off is required One of the worst things a referee can do is reinterpert the Laws as they see fit. Sometimes it takes courage to apply the Laws, good referees summon up the courage...poor referees find ways to wimp out (the classic pulling the ball out of the PA) I know my comments will cause consternation among some here...but it is what it is.
I didn't see the game, but seems like a decent U12 ought to be able to put enough onto a ball to score from just outside the penalty area. Don't weasel out of a call due to that. A similar thing that happened to a HS girls team I was coaching a few years ago. JV game, with many rec players so the overall skill level was probably not much above a good U12G team. One of my players gets a breakaway, nobody anywhere near her. Keeper comes outside the penalty area and absolutely levels my player without so much as sniffing the ball. Clearest OGSO I've ever seen, right? Apparently not, as the side ref calls a foul and nothing else. I did manage to have a polite discussion with him after the game. He used the same argument as NJLaw5: he didn't think that, at that skill level, 25 yards out was within scoring distance. I politely reminded him that the one goal we did score that game was on a shot from just about 25 yards. In the air, not on a bounce. Sorry, not buying it. He rationalized himself away from a correct call by essentially saying, "well, they're not good enough to call that." To me (ref or coach) that's a lame excuse. They are responsible for respecting the Laws, regardless of how good they are. Certainly for a U12 competitive team, around here, a red in the original scenario for DOGOSO would be easy for me to give.
Now hold the phone here a minute. There is no reinterpretation of the Laws just because a referee doesn't issue the send-off. According to US Soccer there is no such thing as a mandatory Caution or Send-off. Referees are encouraged to use discretion and common-sense in misconduct situations. We were taught a very valuable lesson at ODP. Before you pull that card, think about what its going to gain you. If a card is not going to gain you match control, keep the thing in your pocket and handle the situation verbally. In this case we're not talking about an iminent shot on goal, a sure goal shot knocked down by handling, or even a tactical foul of any sort. So what does sending off the player gain you in terms of match control? Nothing. I don't buy the argument that a U12 Premier coach is going to get out of control over a possible DOGSO not being a send-off in the situation described in the OP. The coach that will have a problem with you for the rest of the match is the one whose player you sent off for inadvertent contact. I see zero value to game management in having a U12 team play with 7 and a player suspended for an additional match for a non-tactical, inadvertent foul 20 yards from the goal. That's not reinterpreting the laws, that's doing what we're taught by our mentors and instructors.
I'll be honest, if I am a coach of a HIGH level U-12 team in a tournament and a referee doesn't send off a player for DOGSO, then I am going to complain until the cows come home. DOGSO is not something we do for match control IMO, we do it because it is the penalty for fouling someone who has a good chance at scoring a goal. Sure, SFP/USB (among other) calls are for match control, and these are the cards you need to take a step back and look at the big picture for. However, DOGSO, while there is some wiggle room with the 4Ds, is not there help you with game management IMO. I mean, what does a DOGSO card get you in a pro level match when it comes to match control (beyond not losing your credibility if you don't send someone off for a DOGSO)?
Sorry, but I really have trouble with your phrase "wasn't a deliberate breach of the laws". Doesn't that assume we (the referee) can determine intent? As a player, I have made some of my most flagrant contact (threatened with a yellow) completely without any intent of touching my opponent because I was off-balance or poorly-positioned for the attempted tackle. Conversely, I have flattened opponents with a perfectly timed charge (no foul) that earned me the ball and a much more respectful group of attackers moving through the midfield. I concur with the group that states it's a skill question. A group of U10 recs playing bunch ball are periodically going to make some very incidental boot-to-shinguard contact. For me, that's not a foul although I will often verbally warn a player who seems totally unabashed when that type of contact is made. A group of "very skilled" U12s know where their feet are and understand that kicking another player (that little touch on the heel from behind is a devastating foul - destroys balance, speed and touch with great subtlety) is a foul. In my definition, the trip described would be a careless foul (either the defender was out of control due to bad positioning or the attempted tackle was hazardous to the opponent because reaching through resulted in a trip).
I'll return to what I discussed earlier. DOGSO exists as a send-off in the Laws because it is assumed that a player guilty of DOGSO has commited an offense that has irreparably and directly affected the outcome of the match. The most obvious example being the DOGSO-H where the ball is headed into the net but the handling prevents that occuring. We cannot award the goal and therefore there is no way to truly correct the wrong that has occurred. As such this type of situation is one that FIFA and the IFAB must avoid at all costs. Therefore the send-off is added for DOGSO as a way to discourage players from commiting these tactical fouls as a last ditch effort feeling it's better to give up a PK/DFK than a goal. Now instead they are leaving the game, their team plays one down the rest of the match and the PK/DFK is still given. I don't see where the spirit of this law is carried out by sending-off an 11 year-old from a small sided match for getting his feet tangled with an attacker as he struggles to get back to position to defend against a shot. At that age the players are still learning body control, strategy and many are getting their first taste of new laws (Offside being the significant addition). I still can't see how the game is served, in spirit or in match management, by sending of the kid, making her team play one down (in a small sided match) and having her serve a minimum 1 game suspension. How is that equitable? It's not! Now as I said in my OP on this topic, much of my decision making here would depend on the context of the match. If I've got a 1-0 game, and the U12's are playing like U14P's and this is the equalizer in the remaining 10 minutes of the match, MAYBE I might see fit for a send-off. However, I have a very hard time imagining a match that would be that heavily contested at U12 Girls to the point that I'd be willing to impose that harsh a penalty on a player who simply got a little sloppy at the worst possible moment. And if you as a coach laid into me for that as you describe, it would be the rare time I'd take great pleasure in sending your ass to the showers. As to your question about a pro-level match, you answered it yourself as to what it buys you in terms of match management. It keeps the game in control. If you don't send off a player at a pro-level for DOGSO, the game will go to shit as one team will feel they can get away with a great deal, and the other feels totally injusticed and will respond poorly. In the case of a U12G, this is not the same, few if any of those players even understand what DOGSO is. There are ways to teach without being overly officious. Fact is this is a very discretionary call, given the distance to goal, the playing level, etc. Yes I have seen U12's score from 20 yards out but very rarely and next to never whent there's a keeper in the goal. I've seen U14's score from mid-field, but I'm not very likely to give DOGSO for a "last-man" foul at that spot in one of those matches.
If you feel that the 4 D's were met, then you should be issuing a red card. Now you could say that because of the age and skill level of the players, the 4 D's were not met, but this is really the only way out of giving this card. It's not really about game management per se, but the fact that a goal scoring opportunity was unfairly taken away from one team, and the laws of soccer deem that this must be punished severely (with a send off).
In terms of presenting cards for match control, I absolutely agree. There was nothing in the description of the play that suggests the quality of the foul (reckless, excessive force) was the reason for a considering a caution or sending-off. I don't see this as a match control issue. It's more like a keeper picking up a throw-in. If it happened, you call it (ok, maybe for noncompetitive U-littles you have a bit of a discussion and retake the throw). Top center edge of the penalty area, U12s, only the keeper between the attacker and the goal...I would say there is definitely an imminent shot. In this case, this is not about calming a match which has become violent or dangerous for the players. It is about determining if a player successfully denied an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Due to the value of a single goal and an inability to allow advantage to play out (wait to see if the PK or DFK results in a goal) the penalty to the offending team is playing at a disadvantage (down a player) for the remainder of the match. FIFA does advise that if advantage is played and the goal is scored the offending player cannot be sent off. This was not the case here. Of the seven offenses that lead to a sending-off it seems the DOGSO foul and the second caution are the least discretionary. DOGSO foul, no goal scored, skillful, competitive match. Red card.