DOGSO H question

Discussion in 'Referee' started by chwmy, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Jun 28, 2007
    Ah I see the problem. That's just JA (I'm assuming based on this thread...) dancing around trying to give the correct answer and comply with the ATR. Who cares if it's DGH or DGF so long as it's called?

    Note that JA says "interupts" a play conforming to the 4D's - i.e. you don't evaluate the 4 D from where the ball is handled, but from where it is going to. Which is perfectly sensible.

    BTW the USSF did not invent the 4D's. They are just describing the powerpoints that FIFA sent out when they introduced the laws.
     
  2. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    I agree with you that current interpretation supports the fact that a goal has to be a certainty. My question is why? It wasn't like the change occured a long time ago, the evidence I presented was from after changing the USSF logo so most people should remember this time.

    Why would US Soccer pull such a sudden and drastic change in interpretation in stark contrast to what the rest of the world believes.
     
  3. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    You are right, the USSF didn't invent the 4 D's, and if they think they are describing what FIFA says, they are taking a unique position.

    To my knowledge, nobody uses the 4 D's in the manner of the USSF. In all other associations, the concept of "considering" four elements is Law. Nowhere in the LOTG does it say all four elements need to be there. It doesn't even say ANY need apply, though you probably need to be pretty persuasive in defending you position if at least some aren't.

    If by the Powerpoints, you mean the teaching guidelines for law 12 on the FIFA site, they don't say the 4 elements need to be there either.

    The USSF has an anomalous position, to put it charitably.
     
  4. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Jun 28, 2007
    I am talking about the slides that were sent out when the law first came out. Don't know where they are now. But they show things like a stick figure hacking another stick figure on the base line and a big title saying "Not DOGSO". So the USSF dutifully wrote it up as "the direction of play must be towards the goal".

    And clearly the ATR inspired the FIFA interps. Sure the latter say "consider" but I doubt you can come up with a scenario which would be a send off in the rest of the world based on "considerations" yet a good USSF ref wouldn't find a way to meet the 4 D's.

    To be charitable, you sure have some big moles under your lawn. ;)
     
  5. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    I think you just have to search this forum to find folks who argue that this or that foul wasn't DOGSO because one of the elements was missing.

    I recall it was part of the discussion on Beuhler's red card in the last WWC. People here kept ticking off the 4 D's which don't exist in World Cups.
    ( still have trouble seeing a foul at all, but that's a different issue)

    Look for the thread on the Brasil game and see for yourself.

    As to "finding a way" to meet the 4 D's, a good ref shouldn't have to...



    I keep seeing statements from USSF folks that the 4 D's are just an explanation of FIFA's 4 elements, but that is clearly not the case.
     
  6. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    Until JA's answer in Nov 2011, there could be no send off for a handling violation unless the ball was going to score, at least here in the US. Actually, even with his November answer, when it is written up in the referee's report, the send-off is for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by committing an offense punishable by a free kick not for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball.

    For whatever reason USSF is adamant that for DOGSO-H to exist, a goal has to be prevented. Not a mind reader but I hope the November answer is a step toward coming in line with the rest of the world on this. Ask any European referee if they send off the keeper if he leaves his penalty area and dives on a ball before it is kicked and there's no one else but the keeper anywhere near the ball and they will say yes and for deliberately handling the ball. The same answer would have been given in 2010 for that matter. Until November, USSF officially said no send off but now they ok it, just not for deliberately handling the ball
     
  7. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    The second part of your sentence seems 100% accurate. But I really, really hope that the bolded part wasn't actually true in the eyes of USSF. I know we debated this a lot and a strict reading of the ATR supports what you say. But my hope is that Allen's November answer wasn't seen as a new directive and that he was just explaining what was always implied.

    Tradition and application at the highest levels (like Kennedy's red card, which La Rikardo referenced) indicates that Allen's explanation was always in force.

    Agreed entirely. DOGSO-H has probably become the most common issue we debate here (I can think of 3 threads since the November answer, and we had plenty before). It's ridiculous that we debate an issue that is so transparently clear in the Laws. DOGSO-H, per the IFAB and FIFA, can apply to stopping a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Why USSF wants to complicate the matter at all is completely beyond me. A lot of things make little sense or are fuzzy... this issue is completely nonsensical because it leads to unnecessary confusion. I hope, like you, that Allen's answer is a step in the right direction.
     
  8. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    I would just like to know why USSF changed their philosophy. As I showed earlier they originally did agree with IFAB that you could send off a player for either denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity by handling. What could possibly drive them to make a change that is in stark contrast to the rest of the world? :confused:
     
  9. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    I think the whole 4 D's thing confused them.


    I came across an interesting take on this scenario in the Beach Soccer I&G from FIFA. (yeah, I know it's not the same sport)

    They cite a scenario where if the keeper is out of the PA , and a player handles the ball in the fashion described, the offending player is sent off. If the handling attempt is unsuccessful and the attacker scores, it is still a caution. Both offenses are for USB.

    I have never watched beach soccer much. Was handling so prevalent that the scenario had to be mentioned?
     
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Almost no chance this stays up on YouTube, as UEFA has become a lot more aggressive lately, but 1:25 of this video shows a classic DOGSO-H situation from yesterday:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2HuvAvEimY"]PSV - Trabzonspor 4-1 All Goals & Highlights HD - YouTube[/ame]

    Of course, apparently here in the US we're supposed to call that DOGSO-F? And before November we weren't supposed to send someone off for this? Sorry. Don't understand the first one and I don't buy the second one.
     
  11. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    Is this where I ask if the ball was going in the goal?:D
     
  12. oldreferee

    oldreferee Member

    May 16, 2011
    Tampa
    I ask this in all seriousness, IS THAT TRUE? In a real and practical sense.
    Did anyone ever give just a yellow (or less, I guess) for that?

    I always thought this was a red (forget about the arguement of which red). Was I just living in the dark? Cuz I'm pretty sure I wasn't living in Europe :D.

    Oh, and thanks for the great video example.
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Of course not. But go back through this board prior to Allen's answer. Every time this situation or a discussion of DOGSO-H came up, some people argued that DOGSO-H only applied in the US to 100% goal situations. And those people never brought up the possibility that this sort of handling was DOGSO-F. Taken together, it sure seemed like those people were arguing that this sort of situation was not a red card.
     
  14. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Ha. On the first angle, I actually thought it was possible, so I almost held up on posting this clip. On the second angle, though, you see that it's a mini-chip--even if it was on target, there wasn't enough force for that ball to get into the net without another touch because a defender would have covered.
     
  15. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    The USSF positions on DOGSO seem to cause about 20 trillion more problems than they solve. The text of the law is clear from FIFA, and the best way to call it is to observe the game/level of play and determine the likelyhood of a goal being scored, and then carding appropriately. Instead, the USSF has tried to Football rule this law, and the results are horrific.

    As for that clip MassRef, while I would agree that the Red Card is correct, does that actually meet the 4 D's as applied by USSF?
     
  16. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    Perhaps we should ask JA if he can dig up why/when this interpretation came about? If the answer is that it has always been this way, then I say something is rotten in the state of US Soccer and call BS. This being based on all the evidence we have uncovered from previous law books and current IFAB guidlines.

    I call not it. :D
     
  17. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    What would be missing?

    He's going to goal. He's 20 yards out. He's in possession of the ball as he chips it over him. And, at the time of the handling, there's only one defender closer to the goal line--and that player is about 6-7 yards to the left of the incident.

    I think it definitely meets the criteria.

    Though you implicitly raise an interesting point about the stringent nature of the 4 Ds, which prompts a war story...

    Long ago, U17B or U19B match at the Capital Cup in DC, back when it was a major tournament around Thanksgiving... I'm the AR on the side of the field where this is an incident. Ball gets played over the top and a sole attacker beats the offside trap. But the ball is bouncing. Goalkeeper comes charging out to challenge the attacker, trying to get their first. But the attacker gets there first and plays the ball, from a half-volley, past the side of the goalkeeper, who is about 25 yards out. While this is going on, a defender from the far side has raced back and is standing around the penalty spot. The goalkeeper then reaches out and swats the ball, which is about at elbow-level, back upfield by deliberately handling it outside the penalty area.

    So you have a deliberate handling foul about 25 yards out by the goalkeeper. Attacker was definitely going to collect it. There was only one defender back. And he was going straight to goal. I flag and start patting my back pocket furiously. Easy, easy, easy red.

    Referee comes in and shows yellow.

    I thought, maybe he didn't want to do it because it was already a 2-goal game and this was a showcase tournament. Not that that would make it right per se, but it'd be an understandable position to take.

    So we go to talk after the game. I thought he might bring it up, because he clearly saw me telling him it was red and, usually when you overrule an AR like that, you tend to give him the courtesy of explaining why afterward. But I had to prompt the discussion. So I ask, "why no red on the keeper?"

    Verbatim response: "Oh, you were wrong. There was a defender back."

    If I was near the desk I'm sitting at now, I would have started banging my head against it.

    He proceeded to argue that, for it to be DOGSO, the foul has to be behind the last defender and that the guy standing on the penalty spot was covering so no red card. I pointed out that, similarly to offside, the goalkeeper and "typical" last defender had changed places, so that shouldn't matter. He then went for the gold, in my opinion, but arguing that situations like this are different, because we are talking about a defender who could challenge for the ball. I tried, in vein, to point out that, "well, yes, but the defender you're talking about can't use his hands legally, when the goalkeeper can... so this was actually more of an obvious goal-scoring situation than normal." The guy wouldn't hear it. Was 100% convinced he made the right call and for the reasons that I laid out. It baffled me so much that, as you see, I still remember it to this day.
     
  18. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Well, you obviously don't knowthe rule and need to check the rule book. The rule is about last man. (What's all this stuff about dogs?) The GK wasn't the last man b/c there was a defender back. A GK isn't a defender, so a defdner can be the last man when the GK is still back there. It's really the same reason that we don't count the GK as the one defender needed to keep a player onside -- the GK isn't considered a player for that rule either. You really need to pay more attention to TV announcers, coaches, and players so that you can develop a proper understanding of the rules. :rolleyes:



     
    Nestapele and Alberto repped this.
  19. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    i have, over the years, been exceedingly grateful to mr. allen, as i my sophomoric questions are ALWAYS answered.

    in this case, i feel like i have been misled, as we have been told a few times that dogso-h means that the ball was headed into the net. now, i see that a denial by handling can still be dogso-f as long as the criteria are met.

    i can make sense of that pretty easily now, but the way in which the dogso-h was dictated made it seem awfully absolute. perhaps that's my fault for extrapolating.
     
  20. CanadaFTW

    CanadaFTW Member

    Jun 21, 2007
    But the USSF interpretation (or what you are advocating) is to me, clearly in direct conflict with the wording of the Law. USSF would have us believe that there is DOG-H and DOGSO-F, which is clearly not the case. It is denial of goal or goal scoring opportunity for handling, so how you interpret this differently is beyond me.
     
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Ours is not to reason why . . .

    Seriously, I agree. This is one of the places that I think USSF gradually painted itself into a corner. But to get out, rather than sho-horning handling into DOSGO-F, it seems pretty easy to separately describe DOG-H and DOGSO-H, and to adopt something akin to the 4Ds for DOGSO-H if they think it needs to be further delineated.
     
  22. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    That won't get the USSF in line with the world. It will just make matters worse and you will never get a USSF ref as a center in the WC.

    We already invented a football game. It's called the NFL at the pro level.


    FIFA is very clear that there can be a sendoff in an indirect free kick handling offense. They write a couple sentences on it. DOGSO is just DOGSO to FIFA. I'm not sure I trust the USSF to be able to see the implications of what it writes.

    I have been thinking about your comment on Hemmingway. 5,000 noun-verb sentences in a row might not be all that bad.
    When you run the Laws through a parser, it's actually pretty funny.
     
  23. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I, as much as anyone, think that the DOGSO-H instruction is absurd and has been flat-out wrong in the past. But this sort of argument is far too hyperbolic:
    A) You really think the 4 Ds are that out of line with what is in the I&G, produced by FIFA? They both say essentially the same thing (3 bullets compared to 4). The only big difference is that USSF has, at times, demanded that they be stringently applied rather than "considered." I say this as someone who has advocated for the 4 Ds to be laxed, so I admit there is a difference. But so big of a difference that it will prevent the selection of one of our referees at the World Cup?

    B) Along those lines, do you think FIFA is constantly reviewing the individual instructions of all 200+ FAs and punishing the referees from those federations that it feels have strayed? From a referee development standpoint, I think FIFA has better things to do with its time.

    C) Mark Geiger just refereed a FIFA World (Youth) Cup Final. It didn't seem to hold him back.

    And again, I say all of that as someone who would likes the more liberal approach to the 4 Ds and is pretty sure that the DOGSO-H teaching has been invented out of thin-air. But these are minor problems in the grand scheme of things--both domestically and internationally.
     
  24. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009

    No it's not. The I&G says that DOGSO can be based on an IFK offense. It doesn't say, and I've never seen elsewhere, anything specific to GK handling offenses. And Law 12 makes clear that DOGSO-H does not apply to the GK in the PA -- not really a necessary gloss unless the point is to exclude the GK IFK handling offenses. So I don't see the ATR interpretation that the IFK handling offenses don't support DOGSO as at odds with the Laws or the I&G -- though I can certainly see where it is not the only possible interepretation.

    As far as the 4 Ds, we can argue round and round about whether they are an interpretation of or a bastardizaion of the I&G guidance, but the reality is that they aren't that different, and application through the 4Ds or through a looser interpretation of the considerations in the I&G differ in only occasional circumstances. (And yes, I do see how the ATR 4Ds do make it easier for a cowardly ref to justify a poor decision -- but cowardly referees are going to make poor decisions anyway.)
     
  25. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    That interpretation is only so if you believe a keeper is not a player.

    Here is what the I&G says:

    It says PLAYER and it doesn't exempt keepers. The keeper exception is on the next page in discussing Keeper offenses. You are not sending the keeper off for one of those.

    So if a keeper commits a handling foul, ( there are several he CAN commit) he can be ( it says IS, not MAY BE) sent off.

    It is not for handling, that is true, but he is nevertheless looking for soap and a shower.

    We agree!:)
     

Share This Page