I think one should expect more of a recovery for the attacker to not call the DOGSO than what would normally be required to consider advantage to be realized (so I guess I agree with SoCal, if I understood him correctly). Might add in this bit from the last guidelines; So the IFAB clearly envisioned some scenarios where you'd play advantage but still also do a sending off. Could all be the "ball comes to a teammate" kind of situations but still.
I would agree with SoCal. But... Then I realised that the part from the last guidelines doesn't seem to have made it over to the latest version of the laws. This has to yet another of those "everybody knows this so we don't need to have it in the laws" kind of omissions right? They can't have meant it to be an actual change of the laws?
Ah thanks. Looked for a long time, not sure how I missed it. Also glad to see that they have separated out DOGSO from the red card offences for which one should stop the game as soon as possible for. Have always been my opinion and one have to believe that it was done intentionally. Might bring even more relevance to what we have been discussing in the thread even.
I don't know. I think in practice what you describe is exactly what everyone expects but I do not think it is actually supported by the laws. The guidance addresses what to do if a goal IS scored from a DOGSO (player is cautioned for UB) so then by default should we extrapolate what to do if a goal is not scored? Probably not... It makes sense to me that it's the same thing although I think by the LOTG it isn't a single event. It's a foul that we acknowledge by raising our arm(s) and yelling ADVANTAGE rather than a whistle and stopping play then it's a missed shot on goal. So in your hypothetical is everything the same except the color of the card? You say no, the continuation nullifies DOGSO so you are giving no card for a missed shot, but a YC for a made shot? Say it isn't DOGSO but SFP, everything else the same, shot is missed would you go back and give the RC? Of course. So technically the foul whether it be DOGSO or whatever happens, we recognize the foul and at the next stoppage go back and give the card. Since the LOTG say what to do for a made goal It could be argued they are saying that only a goal is a realized advantage, although they do not specifically say so thus my probably not from above - we could argue that any continuation of play that we decide is advantage realized is advantage realized but anything but a goal should still be a RC. If they had written "Advantage should not be applied in situations involving a RC offence..." instead of "Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence..." then maybe we would have our answer but as written I do not think your statement, as much sense as it makes and again what I believe most everyone seeing that hypothetical in real life is actually supported by the LOTG.
No, I'm giving the yellow card either way. That was in my first post in this thread. Of course, but you're also going back and giving that same red card even if the goal is scored – right? But ... That's either the answer to my question, or moots my question, so never mind. (I think.)
Ah thanks @camconcay , that was so much better than what I've managed to put together. Well that is what it used to say, it is only from this year that they have separated out DOGSO. Of course DOGSO had it's own little advantage adage too but still.
I guess you could rationalize it this way - if an attacker is fouled but still has an obvious opportunity to score - it's not really DOGSO, is it? But the laws specify a scenario where advantage is played from a DOGSO foul, so ???. It just doesn't make sense in the scenario Bubba lays out (which was what I envisioned the OP question to be) that the color of the card is determined by the result of the shot (on presumably an open goal in the OP).
Well, unless the GSO that develops after the advantage materializes is considered to be a different GSO than the one that was denied by the foul ...
According to the wording in the good book those denied by hand references "team" and the others reference "opponent", not sure it answers the question though...
That is somewhat what I was trying to say as well - it's another "thing" so foul happens period. If you stop play right there what do you have? If DOGSO then it's DOGSO. So now we have a DOGSO foul but we play advantage so the next thing is whatever happens. The LOTG only address what to do if a goal is scored in a DOGSO situation. Anything else we go back and give the card that foul called for and as you point out SFP/VC is red regardless of the goal/no goal but DOGSO isn't. Goal = YC, no goal is not addressed. We also can consider the scenario if the attacker is DOGSO fouled outside PA, advantage played, fouled inside PA by but for whatever reason not DOGSO (not saying it can happen just that this foul is NOT DOGSO but is a PK) you still have a better chance with a PK than a DFK outside the area but you have DOGSO misconduct to deal with from the first foul, also not addressed in the LOTG like SFP/VC/2YC. So if the DOSGO was careless or reckless the LOTG (in my opinion) do not address that. As of June we will have DOGSO yellow officially in the LOTG so maybe that's what they were thinking anyway as a DOGSO foul can be careless (no card) +4D=RC outside the area. So the "downgrade" was kind of already there for certain DOGSO offenses they just specifically called it out with this years revision to match what they "meant" last year. Sorry, I was just going off the one post that said nullifies the DOGSO, nullify meaning no card I thought.
I'm only half-following this thread now, so apologies if this was already answered/pointed out, but... This was exactly the logic that was used in years past to justify a DOGSO red card for handling on the goal line if the rebound was subsequently scored. In the old ATR, at some point in time, this was actually clearly written out. If a shot was handled on the goal line by a defender but went in anyway, the defender got a yellow. But if the defender actually succeeded in stopping a goal but a new shot was taken and the attacking team scored before the referee whistled for a penalty, the defender was still supposed to be sent off because he had still denied a goal (and a different goal had been scored). Try selling that in real life. I was present at an event, in the earlier part of this decade (I believe as the instruction was disappearing or had recently disappeared) where a video clip that showed this exact scenario was screened and what could only be described as to two very high-level USSF personnel got in a heated back-and-forth over what the correct on-field decision should be. It was quite interesting to see their competing philosophies in action.
To address a tangent point, I very much doubt any player with any self esteem would trade "two steps and a shot on an open goal" for a DFK and a man advantage (well maybe if he was getting paid huge sums of money for his team winning, but at that level the CR might card him for simulation if he fell down...)