What is DOGSO-H?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Iforgotwhat8wasfor, Jun 26, 2019.

  1. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Jun 28, 2007
    This question arises from the discussion of the Japan/Netherlands game in the WWC Ref thread. I have moved it out to avoid too much digression.

    I was curious why, having penalized the Japanese captain for deliberate handling of a shot at goal, the CR only showed a YC. Code1390 explained that handling that disrupts attacking play including a shot on goal which does not rise to DOGSO-H is to be cautioned.

    My follow-on question is there any official guidance or informal consensus of when a blocked shot would constitute DOGSO-H. The Law, of course, applies to both stopping the ball from entering goal and stopping an obvious opportunity for a goal. Deliberate handling covers both commission (intentional) and omission (risking accident) handling. By any plain reading, I think all would agree the shot in the Japan/Netherlands contest had an obvious chance of eluding the keeper and entering the goal. So, are there guidelines, or is it just ITOOTR who chose discretion to avoid heaping insult on injury?
     
  2. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    The general concept on DOGSO-H is the R believes that but for the handling the ball was going in the net. On the Japan play, that would be hard to say and would have been awfully harsh.

    (While not technically part of the analysis, I think the reality is that the more deliberate/blatant/cynical the handling is, the less benefit of the doubt that is given to the defender. There was certainly nothing cynical/calculated in the handling offense by the Japanese defender.)
     
  3. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The simplest answer is if a defender handles the ball (away from the goal line) and the goalkeeper was in a position to potentially save it, then it's not DOGSO.
     
  4. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    I didn't see the game you refer to, but basically dogso-h is when a ball is deliberately handled and would have directly entered the goal if not for the handling. This is always red (unless it has been changed for 19/20, I have not read the changes).
     
  5. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    No change.
     
  6. sulfur

    sulfur Member

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    What's mentioned above is the "Denying an obvious goal by handball" segment... So, in short, as noted above, if the ball is clearly and obviously going into the goal except for the handling, this is a sending off (aka red card).

    The classic example of this is the Suarez play from a couple of World Cups ago. Jumps up, bats away a ball with his hand that would've ended up in the goal if he hadn't handled.

    The other facet of DOGSO-H is what we sometimes see with GK's outside the penalty area (for example). This facet is pretty much the same as the DOGSO-F (standard DOGSO) except that the offence committed is handball rather than a tackle, trip, hold, etc.

    So, a GK goes outside their penalty area, dives and knocks ball away with hands... the ball isn't obviously going into the goal directly, but an offence has still been committed that takes away the obvious goal scoring opportunity.
     
  7. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Worth noting that this scenario is definitely dogso-f and should be recorded as such, it matters in some leagues for suspensions.
     
    ArgylleRef repped this.
  8. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thank you.

    USSF really confused this issue badly a few years back when they said that handling that denied an OGSO was actually DOGSO-F, rather than DOGSO-H because DOGSO-H was only about denying the ball going into the goal. Remember that the actual codes we use(d) in USSF are/were DGH and DGF, which I think helped encourage them to confuse the issue. Regardless, they were wrong as the laws literally said "denies a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity via... handling."

    It's pretty simple for me, regarding the "denial of a goal" part:

    Handling a shot on goal is a yellow card.
    Handling a near certain goal is a red card.

    Obviously there's a tad bit of judgment involved. But if the keeper has a chance at making a save, it's a yellow. If not, it's a red.

    And then, of course, there's the part about the OGSO, which you accurately describe. There are also some similar cases that would be red cards, too (e.g., a defender swats the ball off the foot of an attacker after the defender slips, when all the other DOGSO conditions are met).
     
    Thezzaruz, Sam_C and socal lurker repped this.
  9. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    ... or deliberate. :rolleyes:
     
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Except it’s not, per the Laws. But USSF decided to confuse the issue.
     
    Thezzaruz repped this.
  11. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    True IFAB LOTG include this scenario as DGH. I'm always looking through the lens of USSF because they govern every league I work. Has USSF changed their position?
     
    Kempa repped this.
  12. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/op3a01vqh2lt7728m90p7e1m39tlpjr5

    I don't see anything that suggests us soccer tells refs to do that anymore.

     

Share This Page