DOGSO, caution, or run of the mill foul?

Bingo. If we want to say because of the age/skill level, the Distance from the goal D was not satisfied, then fine, I think you could argue that. I've seen 12 year olds miss the goal from the penalty spot before, so skill and age definitely matter when it comes to determining if a play is a OGSO or not. However, a referee who feels that the 4Ds were clearly met but does not send off due to age is doing the teams and that game an injustice. Do 12 year old kids not foul out in basketball? I assume they leave the game and are not allowed to return if they do foul out. The child's world will not end because they are disqualified from a match.

 

Yes, because pro matches EXPECT and DEMAND that the laws be enforced correctly. So if a younger team is fine with certain laws being ignored, we should accommodate them? If a league wants to take out the DOGSO rule, then fine, I'm sure they are allowed to do so (enough other rules are modified). I'm not saying that we should be nasty to the girl or make an example of her, but the team and player should be punished as directed in the laws and rules of the match.

I agree with your last paragraph, it is a very discretionary call. Perhaps we are simply arguing wording here. Just to clarify, if one of these U-12 girls was on the goal line and handled the ball to prevent a goal, would you send them off or not? It is the people that would NOT because she is only 12 that I disagree with. I agree that the same play in a U-14 match may be DOGSO but may not be in a U-12 match.

 

There used to be a clause in the LOTG known as "IBD8" that captured the essence behind the "Spirit of the Law," stating that the referee is only to punish those offenses found to be deliberate, and we are not out there to whistle every little offense that is doubtful or trifling. Contact occurs all the time in soccer, and nearly 90% of it will fit the letter of the law for being a foul. However, only a very small fraction of that contact impacts the ability for the opponent to continue playing in a fair manner.

This clause was removed because too many referees were confused by the word "deliberate," translating it to mean "intentional." Referees would refrain from calling fouls under the auspice that the player "didn't mean to do it," which was an inaccurate interpretation.

Deliberate refers to actions, whereas intent refers to results. I may deliberately perform a slide tackle, but never intend to wipe out the opponent. Regardless of my intent, this is still a foul. Contrast that to an act that is purely not deliberate, one that is accidental or not under my control. I may be innocently trying to run down the ball, but in the process I get my legs tangled up with an opponent trying to do the same. Neither one of us performed any deliberate act to trip the other, and yet we both were tripped. No foul has occurred, even though "tripping" is clearly a foul under Law 12.

 

It may be a case that I'm not being clear here (and it may very well be that I'm not 100% in my own head how to describe this although I know it when I see it so to speak). Handling on the goal line, yes I'd send off there. That's a case where it's had a clear and definite impact on the game (in that a goal was absolutely denied). And in the case mentioned in the OP of this thread, if it's at the top of the 6 and the other 3 D's are met, then yes, I'd send off.

So yes please don't confuse me with the type of referee who makes the blanket statement that I'd never send off a U12. Case in point, I have sent off a U12 for DOGSO (hard tackle from behind at the top of the 6 with 4D's met).

 

I'm a big fan of "For the Good of the Game" and regularly refresh myself on that now striken Board Decision.

Don't want to play semantics with you but this is how I see it:

If a player initiates contact (other than a legal charge) that puts his opponent at a disadvantage, it is a foul.

Your tripping scenario was not initiated by one player or the other. No foul.

Your slide tackle scenario resulted in a disadvantage. Foul.

The question now becomes one of is it trifling and does my calling it promote or denigrate the quality of the game.

Where is the ball? Did the fouled player make a brilliant pass that could result in a goal-scoring opportunity for his team? If so, play on. If the tackle were reckless (you used the phrase "wipe out the opponent"), it may deserve a yellow but I can sort that out at the next dead ball.

Often a fouling player will withdraw from the play and give his opponent an opportunity to gather himself and continue on while maintaining possession of the ball. The foul was not trifling but the fouled player resumed the match without the need for a formal restart. My stopping play merely interferes with the flow of the match.

A skilled player may accept a number of foul tackles, kicks and pushes while continuing to maintain possession and create danger. I play the advantage and note the fouls without a formal restart. Again, the foul was not trifling but by indicating advantage I support the fouled player. For me, any foul not whistled due to advantage would tally against the fouling player in consideration of a caution for persistant infringement.

Two players running side by side have their hands and arms entangled to various degrees. Neither gains any particular advantage. No foul or trifling.

It's all so subjective you just have to determine what you standards are and apply them consistently.

"...in the opinion of the referee..."

 

Well, if you're already familiar with IBD8 and Bob's For the Good of the Game then I'm not sure why you take issue to the word "deliberate." But, good for you anyway.

 

What you do each time is assume away the foul in your argument. You argue that a card is not warranted for an inadvertant foul, in this case a trip. If it is inadvertant, then it is not a foul. What others are pointing out is that if it is in fact a trip, then it is DOGSO. If its just tangled feet, then its a no-call situation.

 

i guess i'm not so sure i can tell the difference amoung - the defender accidentally stepped on the heals; or, the defender purposely placed himself in a position to hope to accidentally step on his heals; or, the defender purposely stepped on his heals. aren't we instructed to judge actions and results and not try for intent?

 

You softy, come on...you mean refereeing hasn't ripped the soul out of your body yet??!!!

I've said it earlier, I'm not sure why being ejected from a match is such a life altering experience. Perhaps in these days where "everyone wins" and "there are no losers", some people think you should never tell a child that they are not allowed to play in this game anymore. I am curious as to how referees outside of the US see this issue. Are kids in England or Australia (I think we have posters from each of these locations) sent-off for DOGSO and other "non-violent" actions? If not, when do you start to treat the kids like adult players when it comes to this stuff?

 

As a defender, if I'm hoping to position myself to stop the ball I need to get some sort of an angle. If I'm sprinting directly behind the attacker, I really have no chance of making a play on the ball without going through the attacker. Any contact from directly behind like that is, at least IMHO, careless because there is no reasonable opportunity to play the ball. For me, the defender's action (running directly behind the attacker) defines intent (play the attacker, not the ball).

Conversely, if the attacker suddenly swerves or slows in a way that the defender's momentum carries her into the attacker, the defender did not initiate the contact and, as a referee, I would probably not call the foul.

 

Alright, I want to know where you guys live and the games you're covering because I want to see some of these hugely competitive matches at the U12G level. I mean seriously, an 11 year old girl that fully understands the angles and getting to the point where they're going instead of where they are? Jesus, the coaches around here are still harping on those topics at the U14B level.

As far as why a red card is so brutal, excuse me flunkie but do you have (or have you had) girls at the 11 year old range? They're very emmotional, still quite immature and very few if any are going to understand the concept of that's the law and I have no choice (and simply put, that's B/S anyway, as a referee you do have the choice). What they are going to understand is that they did what their coach told them to (get after the ball), they made contact accidentaly with an opponent, and now as a result they not only can't play anymore in this game, and not only does their team have to now play with one fewer players which can be crippling for at team at this level, but now she can't play in her next game either. Add to that just the embarassment factor that goes along with the Red Card in that age group and yes the Send-Off is a HUGE deal.

Now yes, you can hide behind the shield of "Well the coaches should teach them the laws". But I will in turn remind you of a very well documented and communicated position of the USSF and FIFA that referees are to be as much teachers as they are enforcers especially at the younger youth levels. I don't see blasting a red in the face of an 11 year old girl doing much to teach her about the laws when she's likely standing there not understanding what she did wrong in the first place.

I'm sorry, I see a lot of "My hands are tied, I have to do this" going on in this thread and I think that's amazingly contrary to everything we're told in the ATR and by USSF especially for the youth level (and a very young youth level here). To me that's a cop out on the part of the official, to say I can't apply common sense and the spirit of the game here because the laws say I have to do this is exactly what our mentors and instructors don't want us to do. I don't know, I guess I give up on this because it's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on this. Just do me this favor, don't question my resolve to enforce the laws, that is not what this is about at all.

 

This stuff is why I read the Referee forum even though I'm not a ref.

As a coach, I had this situation occur with my U13s (competitive but not Premier-level) some years ago. The referee awarded a DFK at the point of the foul and cautioned my player (the defender). My player had no interest in touching the attacking player, much less fouling her, but was simply trying to get back to defend as best she could. She was mortified by the card but she did live.

I thought the decision was appropriate - the ref used the yellow to get her attention (which worked great) and to tell her quickly and quietly what the situation was. He also told me after the game, which I appreciated. If I thought that my player had any intention to make contact with the attacker, then I would have expected a red. But she didn't, and in my experience, most U12s and U13s don't play that way.

BTW, they did convert the DFK.

 

Yup. "Careless, reckless, or with excessive force." We're having a lovely pedantic discussion on where these terms entered the LOTG in another thread


https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=620262

and even have translations from German!

But that language replaced "deliberately" in the LOTG, so the move was indeed to get away from "intent" and go to style of play and result. And there's always "trivial"--it didn't affect the game or provide an unfair advantage. That's how I read those who say that even if the stepping on the heels and the resulting trip was a careless foul, with the ball far away and rolling out, it essentialy was trivial, and not to be called.

The DOGSO cases for different age groups is more complicated--I'm with those who say it has to be adjusted for age and skill level, but there aren't hard and fast rules here. The more violent or uncontrolled it is, or the more obvious it is not a play on the ball but against the opponent, the better the chance to score, etc., then the more likely I am to call it. In some ways, this is just an expansion of whether it was trivial or not, although that doesn't cover all situations. As with the Pirates of the Carribean, "It's more like guidelines than actual rules." Aarrgh.

 

Ah I was waiting for the "do you have girls this age" card to be played!

Actually, I understand that I do have a choice, and I CHOOSE to send them off if they have committed a DOGSO foul and I feel that this is the SPIRIT of the game. Again, I will make the point that what is an OGSO at this age is VERY limited...in fact, the OP situation sounds debatable due to "distance from goal", and could likely go either way. However, if you commit the crime, you do the time...I don't think this is a bad lesson for 11 year olds to learn. Yes they may be emotional....yes they may cry (There's no CRYING in baseball!!!)....but you know what, so be it. These kids are playing competitive soccer and as others have said. They are playing it because they want to play with the fouls and laws that higher level, older players play with. If you want to play feel good, everybody is a winner soccer...play rec league.

And NOWHERE did anyone say they would blast a red card in the face of the player. Guess what, I can tell the girl what she did, why it was bad, and that she must leave the game without "blasting the red card in her face" (look a teacher and an enforcer!). You are making assumptions that those of us who would send off the girl in the OP are these big bad hard a$$es because we feel the girl should be sent off.

Whatever, I guess it is clear that we will disagree on this (even though, it sounds like we would BOTH send off a U12 girl if they commit a DOGSO in our mind...honestly, I don't know where you stand since you have stated previously that you have sent off girls this age). You are assuming the girl will mortified that she has been sent off and scarred for life, I am assuming that since they are playing competitive soccer that they can handle it. I am curious....can U12 boys handle this in your mind? I'm trying to gauge at what age these kids become able to accept the rules of soccer and able to handle being sent off.

By the way, here is a picture of me sending off an 11 year old girl.

 

In the spirit of BS fun, I'll address this portion of your post since it seems to be in reply to my post.

I live in a suburban community north of Los Angeles with soccer community made up of a significant (30%) percentage of European immigrant parents and a smaller (10%) percentage of South and Central American immigrant parents.

I play on a club team with native born players from Brazil, Jamaica, Argentina, Columbia, Nigeria, England, Mexico, Guatemala and the USA.

Our local AYSO was Region of the Year a few years ago.

Our local high schools regularly produce scholarship level college soccer players with two of the more famous soccer playing local alumni being Eric Wynalda and Cobi Jones.

I do the majority of my refereeing in the Region and then in various All-Star tournaments through the course of the off-season.

The original description of the competition where the infraction occurred only said U12 Girls. Nothing about rec league, club or All-Stars. It was the Tournament Championship Match (knock-out tournament?) and the teams were described as very skillful.

In the All-Star tournaments I have refereed, I have yet to meet an 11 year old girl who didn't understand the difference between playing the ball and playing the opponent. They certainly know when they are attempting a clean play on the ball versus doing whatever they can to stop an attacker.

I probably would not send-off a rec level AYSO U12 for DOGSO (foul would have to be pretty close to cautionable if committed in the middle third) but in a tournament environment with a championship on the line...the situation described (as I visualize it) demands the offending player leave the field.

 

If you call a foul in this scenario it is either a send off for DOGSO or nothing. You cannot give a yellow "to get her attention". Under what law would you book this player.

 

I agree here.
In addition to refereeing, I am also a coach of an U12 Girls select team... so I know what these girls know and think on the field in general.

If someone made this call for the inadvertant contact described above, I'd be extremely upset and definitely taking it up with the league and officials as an example of a referee who may have memorized the rules but not how to apply them to the game at hand.

DOGSO is intended for a tactical/professional foul. It as intended to stop players from intentionally fouling outside the box when another player has a clear run on goal, thus avoiding the imminent shot and a penalty shot.

These situations just don't happen in of U12 girls games. Now maybe you got the one exception but it doesn't sound like it from the action described in this case. The thought process of "I've got to foul her before she gets in the box" just doesn't exist except in an extremely small number of kids, and even then they wouldn't intentionally commit the foul in such an accidental method.

Don't forget common sense when refereeing.
If you red carded someone for this, you better damn well be confidant it was done intentionally as a professional foul.

 

I have kids around this age ;-) and coach and ref this age... I'll tell you, I don't think I'd hesitate for long in the OP's situation. No question that top of the penalty arc COULD be an OGSO. And I see "tactical" fouls in quite a few of the U11 and U12 girls games I ref.

These 10 & 11 year olds are doing things that I could never manage when I was playing. Heck, one U11 game I watched a few years ago - won in the last 5 minutes with a beautiful bicycle kick. Not a side volley... full on, back to the goal, throw a bike down.

What I DO see all too often are refs that water down their game when doing U11 - U13 games. I'm all for adjusting how you manage a game based on the the age and level of play, but, in my region at least, these 10, 11 and 12 year old kids are immersed in soccer nearly year round and they know the game.

They might not know all the LOTG or what DOGSO is, but they know that they're better off taking down a player before she gets to the box - because it might mean the difference between a PK and just a foul.

Here's a couple of firsts I don't mind being a part of - first caution and first dismissal. If I'm the first ref ever to give a player a properly "earned" caution or send off, I'm fine with that - not unlike Homer

 

Wahoo, I disagree that DOGSO is just for "tactical" fouls. Even a completely accidental trip or other foul removes an obvious goalscoring opportunity, just as surely as a more cynical foul. A defender, especially in a breakaway situation, needs to exercise due care. This is especially true in a "competitive" environment.

FWIW, I have coached U12 girls as well, and teach 6th grade PE. I spend plenty of time around 11-12yo girls, and I don't have a problem with a red card in the original scenario.

 

I am a referee first and foremost. I now coach because my daughter's team needed some help and I thought that getting a coach's eye view would improve my understanding of the game. My daughter's team is U13. I cannot tell you how sick I am of fellow referees that think that the rules are somehow different for "little girls". This team was coached (before I came along) to cynically step up to the ball after a foul and demand that the other team ask for ten. I have told them and told them that it is a cautionable offense. They wouldn't believe me until a 16-17 year old referee cautioned one of them.

In the OP, if you as the referee on the day are of the opinion that a foul has or has not been committed, it is your opinion and the only one that counts. THat is where the flexibility lies. If you decide a foul has been committed then you must consider the four Ds (in USSF of course). If you feel they have not been met, then it is just a foul. Reread the four Ds memo. It says that all of them must be obvious. We could argue all day long about whether 20 yards is an OGSO. Again, that is your opinion and where the flexibility is. Once you decide they have, it is a cop out to say that the girls can't take a red card or that it is too harsh a punishment. What about the team that was denied a goal?

You, as the referee, determine the facts of play. Once you determine those facts, however, your course of action is severely limited. This portion of the law is unambiguous.

Was it a foul? Opinion, YOU decide.
Were the 4 Ds met? Opinion, YOU decide.
If both are yes, then you have no other choices to make. And yes, you can administer a sending off gently.

Steve

 

Great post. This sums it up very nicely.

Sometimes it is fun to not pay attention to a thread until it has nearly run its course! You get to see all sides and ponder without forming a snap opinion. I have enjoyed doing that in this thread.

I tend to lean toward the 'send her off' choice here, assuming the 4 Ds appeared to be met. Players need to learn these sorts of lessons at some point. That tree analogy mentioned by another poster was very apt.

intechpc, this might make you feel better about your position...I suspect MANY of the people who are saying they would send off the U12 girl for DOGSO, would NOT do so if it actually happened in their game. Many times, we as referees can take the 'hard line' approach in theory, but when the game is happening we all too often come up with reasons NOT to make the 'harsh' decision.