USSF Week in Review 25

Discussion in 'Referee' started by GlennAA11, Sep 11, 2009.

  1. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    So the new WiR is out

    http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Referee-Programs/2009/09/2009-Referee-Week-in-Review-Week-25.aspx

    They are now claiming that when it comes to DOGSO that we are supposed to focus on the "obvious" part instead of the "opportunity" part that seemed to be the thing in the past. They say that if the GK has a "good" chance to make a save then a red card is not appropriate. Didn't the guidance used to say that there just had to be a goal scoring OPPORTUNITY taken away by the foul to justify the send off? They admit that the player had a small chance to get a shot on goal, not that he had no chance to score at all. All sorts of things COULD have happened on the play. But if you look at the 4 D's they all seem to point to send off to me. Direction is right at goal despite being a little outside the post. Distance to goal is practically in the 6. Number of Defenders is just the GK. Distance to the ball is about zero.

    Are they really off base with this one or am I?
     
  2. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can't remember the exact dates, but the timeline as I recall has gone something like this...

    ~2001, the 4 D's get introduced after one or two blatant instances where the referee didn't show red

    ~2004, Terry Vaughn gets publicly excoriated on MLSnet (of all places) for giving two red cards for DOGSO in a United v. MetroStars game (this was after the fact where most fans on these boards agreed with the cards). At that point, USSF says that each one of the 4 D's must be obvious in it's own right.

    ~Last year, it seemed that USSF had backed away from this somewhat and had given referees more latitude and was imploring referees to use more discretion.

    Today, USSF seems back to the point where it was after that Vaughn game--where each single component of the 4 D's must be obvious in its own right.

    The pendulum has swung back and forth over the last decade and, quite frankly, it seems ridiculous. Just issue a memorandum that gives us the criteria we should apply, reinforce what the point of the Law is in the first place, and support your referees when they make a judgment call.

    And, quite frankly, insofar as this particular play goes, I think their assessment is a joke. Balls go through goalkeepers all the time when shots are fired from close range. He didn't have an obvious opportunity to score?! From 5 yards away with no one between him and the goalkeeper just because the angle wasn't perpendicular to the goal? You've got to be kidding me. Players and fans and coaches and everyone else essentially understand the DOGSO rule (I know it gets muddied with "last man" references)... saying that DOGSO no longer applies because of a bit tougher angle or because the goalkeeper was too close to the attacker (who had the ball at his feet)... well, that seems preposterous to me.
     
  3. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    The ATR has long said "Even if all these criteria are met, it is still the judgment and opinion of the referee that determines if the event was an obvious goalscoring opportunity."

    I believe this statement is often overlooked.

    I wanted to argue earlier that declaring this a DOGSO was dicey on Salazar's part. But I can't say that I agree with USSF's approach, to say that this clearly was not a DOGSO.

    USSF chose to ignore the two largest elephants in the room, namely that there was NO FOUL (contact was trifling), and that Quaranta clearly DOVE/EMBELLISHED. However, they do bring up a very good point that this foul did not need to be declared a DOGSO.

    Clearly, had Quaranta simply taken the shot, it would have been likely saved by Wicks. There was no DC player he could have passed to that would have had an OGSO, so I believe this option, too, was shut down. But I believe Quaranta could have preserved an OGSO by cutting the ball back and getting a better look at goal. Of course, USSF would be right to point out that you could what-if all day. We don't really know if Quaranta would have been able to cut-back and maintain an OGSO. If Quaranta really thought he had an OGSO, why did he decide to go down?

    In the long run, maybe the best thing to do would be to come up with a number, say 33%, where if one believes a team has a greater than 33% chance of scoring if play were to continue, it should be considered an OGSO, and if less than 33%, it should not to be considered an OGSO. Then leave it up to the referee to decide if the chance of scoring were greater or less than 33%. But at least everyone would be clear on how the word "obvious" should be interpreted.

    I believe some interpret "obvious" to mean that if a player "obviously" had some opportunity to score, even if it was only a 1% chance, then a "goal-scoring opportunity" was "obviously" denied.
     
  4. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC
    This is getting ridiculous.
    The USSF should be working to simplify and standardize foul calls, not make them more and more complicated.
    Maybe next they'll have us consider the players involved. If there's a really good keeper and a rookie on attack, , maybe it's not as obvious a goal scoring opportunity as it would be with a world class striker and a poor keeper.
    maybe that's a bit extreme, but we really seem to be going in that direction.
     
  5. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    I am quite sure they WOULD say this.
     
  6. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    I agree, I think the USSF opinion on the clip in question deviates fairly significantly from past direction. In effect, they are now saying it's the 4 D's + A... angle.

    If that entire sequence is swung 45 degrees to the center of the field and Quaranta comes at the goal from directly in front, there is no question that this is a DOGSO. Essentially, USSF is arguing that the angle of attack limits the space for the attacker to shoot, and therefore this is not a DOGSO. I have never seen this kind of stipulation applied to DOGSO before.

    Very interesting. I would hope that we see more documentation/clarification on this, because the current references do not suggest this factor should be applied.
     
  7. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    Of course angle should be applied. If the ball was just off the goal line and Sala had completely blocked off any direct shot on goal, save a miraculous hard chip to the crossbar, why should one interpret this as an OGSO? Or taken to the extreme, suppose a player is fouled just as he is about to shoot the ball, but the ball is already 95% over the goal line (outside the goal). So that it would be impossible for a goal to be scored from that angle.

    Good move by the USSF.

    I also was quite happy to see that they ruled that the Joseph send-off was harsh.
     
  8. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    The USSF is becoming more and more out of touch with the actual game played on the field every time the release a directive.

    This is crazy stuff.
     
  9. uniteo

    uniteo Member+

    Sep 2, 2000
    Rockville, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here's my problem with the idea that DOGSO does not apply...

    If Quaranta switches the ball to his left foot - a relatively simple move for a professional - the angle is completely to his advantage and the keeper at sea.

    That and to focus on the angle of the shot and positioning of the keeper ignores the distance from goal...at that range the keeper has no opportunity to react. He cannot MAKE a save, but has to hope that the attacker hits the ball at him.
     
  10. uniteo

    uniteo Member+

    Sep 2, 2000
    Rockville, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And I looked at the replay again and Sala is gauarding against the low shot...completely giving away the high shot. Forget going to his left, if Quaranta goes for the roof of the net Sala has no chance. Poor reinterpretation IMHO.
     
  11. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    In fact, Frank Lampard scored an amazing goal against Barcelona in the Champions League a few years back from such an angle. Had he been fouled, he would have been denied the opportunity to score an amazing goal.

    If you look at the 4 D's exclusively, as we are instructed to apply them per the USSF memo dated 9/16/02, the infraction in the video fits the description to a T. If a player is moving towards goal, is within playing distance of the ball, is close to goal, and the foul is committed by the last defender other than the goalkeeper (or the goalkeeper with no other defenders), then all 4 elements are present. The quality of the potential shot is not defined in that memo.

    Further clarification offered on 9/25/07 did not make mention of the potential quality of the scoring chance due to the attacker's angle.

    PVancouver, I understand what you are saying. But to equate what you said to what happened, the attacker with the ball on the goal line with no angle would have been denied the opportunity (through the foul) to pull the ball off the line and create a better angle for himself. That's the idea behind the 4 D's... the foul prevents a one-on-one with the keeper.

    I am perfectly fine with USSF or FIFA saying, "Well, if the angle of attack means the scoring chance quality will be poor, don't send off the player." I don't want to argue that point; I merely believe this is the first time I have seen any kind of official guidance suggesting that this is a factor in the DOGSO decision.
     
  12. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    Maybe you missed this statement the first time.

    However, you are right to refer to two position papers written by USSF to explain DOGSO.


    "If you look at the 4 D's exclusively, as we are instructed to apply them per the USSF memo dated 9/16/02, the infraction in the video fits the description to a T."

    Perhaps this was an oversight, but the memo never states clearly, or even hints, that if all four D's are met, then the referee must call DOGSO. It clearly states that if any of the D's are absent, DOGSO cannot be called.


    "Further clarification offered on 9/25/07 did not make mention of the potential quality of the scoring chance due to the attacker's angle."

    This clarification declared that

    So apparently even if Sanneh was judged to be between the foul and the goal, clearly meeting the stated Number of Defenders requirement, the referee could overlook this hard and fast rule and decide that he would not have been able to "add materially to Colorado’s defense". In the end, despite the 4 D's not being technically met, the referee could still send off the defender for DOGSO.

    Suppose a goalkeeper and an attacker both end up on the ground in front of the right post. The ball sits motionless at top dead center of the goal area. No other player is in the same half of the field (obviously not a likely case.) The keeper is injured and cannot get up, but as the attacker begins to run toward the ball and away from the goal, the goalkeeper is able to grab and hold onto his foot, preventing him reaching the ball. Because goalkeepers have strong arms and hands, the attacker is unable to break free from this hold. Would you say there had been no OGSO, because one of the 4 D's (direction) had not been met? Because the 2002 memo declared that all 4 D's must be present?
     
  13. chrisrun

    chrisrun Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Orlando, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Agreed. When they are talking about tactical fouls, they tell us to ask "Why did the defender foul in this situation?" If there was almost no chance to score a goal, why did the defender foul the attacker?

    Isn't the whole point of DOGSO to allow the attacker to shoot the ball on goal? One of the three core concepts of their game management model, which is presented in the same review, is Entertainment. If I'm a fan, I want to see that shot on goal, not the take down from behind. That could have been a great goal if he could of gotten the shot off, but we'll never know because the attacker was fouled.
     
  14. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    We'll never know because Quaranta knew Moreno was much more likely to score from the penalty spot than Quaranta was had he played through the very minor contact from Torres. The contact from Torres did NOT force Quaranta to go down.

    But if you like Entertainment, perhaps you also like to watch diving. Diving can be very entertaining.
     
  15. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006

    Is contact only a foul if it forces a player to go down?
     
  16. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    No. But if the player goes down because he felt contact, it makes it more difficult to determine if the contact itself was "trifling" or not.

    Even if you believe the contact was not trifling (I don't), and thus was foul worthy, it is clear that the foul did not cause the player to go down.

    Had he stayed up, despite being inconvenienced by Torres, and shot or continued to play the ball, it would be very difficult to declare than an obvious goal scoring opportunity had been denied.
     
  17. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Not so - if you get a shot off but the contact affects the quality of that shot, a DOGSO can certainly still be called.
     
  18. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    Before this discussion deteriorates rapidly, even the Week in Review says to ignore whether or not a foul occurred in this situation. The purpose of the discussion is not to determine if a foul occurred but rather, if a DOGSO was present. We shouldn't even go there... if we argue Quaranta was not fouled, then this discussion doesn't need to take place, and frankly, I think it does need to take place. This is a pretty important development in the DOGSO application, regardless of whether somebody thinks it is a change or not.

    First of all, such a situation is so ridiculously ludicrous that it almost defies the need to consider it.

    To imply that somehow that attacker had gone in, by himself, without any challenge from ANY defender, and somehow he and the keeper wind up recumbent on the goal line lateral to the goal with the ball sitting in the goal area while basically every defender stands at midfield with their thumb up their backside watching all of this happen is about as ridiculous a situation one would ever consider. Except maybe in a U6 game where the rest of the players were picking dandelions, but if we're talking about red carding a 5 year old, we truly need to give up refereeing. :rolleyes:

    Nonetheless, if we entertain the possibility of such a situation, then no, this is not a DOGSO because the attacker is not within playing distance of the ball and is not moving towards goal. FIFA and USSF have defined DOGSO pretty specifically, and because two of the parameters are not met, you should not send the goalkeeper off for such an infraction. It would be a clear tactical foul, however, and deserving of a caution.
     
  19. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    You don't have to be within playing distance of the ball. You only have to be close enough to the ball to be the one who would play it next.
     
  20. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    The memo from 9/16/02 states:

    This same statement is made in the ATR. I don't consider an attacker 6-10 yards from the ball, having just gotten up off the ground, to be close enough to continue playing the ball.

    In your defense, FIFA's LOTG states:

    Perhaps USSF should mend the ATR.

    The ATR goes on to say:

    In your example, both FIFA and USSF agree that the direction play must be considered, and USSF states pointedly that the absence of any of the 4 D's means no red card can be shown. So if the attacker is moving towards a ball away from the goal, it cannot be a DOGSO.
     
  21. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    I have a question for the group in response to USSF's evaluation of this incident. Why is this situation not a red card, but Kasey Keller's red card in Week 4 "clearly a DOGSO" according to the Week in Review?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLsvIoqRQ-Q"]YouTube - WIR4 Keller[/ame]

    The WiR writes:

    If I apply the parameters delivered in Week 25, Keller has closed the angle adequately to turn this into a not-so-obvious scoring opportunity. The distance from goal is at least 20 yards, and with Keller just four yards from the shot at the time. Keller clearly does play the ball with his hands, but if he doesn't use his hands the ball likely hits him in the chest or face, so he's not "making himself bigger" (though the Week 4 WiR claims he does exactly that).

    The Week 25 WiR, in saying Salazar's decision was wrong, states:

    Ultimately, this is going to be ITOOTR. But I think this decision by USSF for Week 25 really blurs the line. I'm not arguing with it, but it does not make me comfortable... :(
     
  22. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    You correctly pointed out the two significant issues with the review of the play in WiR 4.

    Pleading for the defense, you have to hope that for some reason USSF did not think that the ball would otherwise hit Keller in the chest or face and that an OGSO was in fact denied, because his arm/hand actually did make Keller "bigger" at the time of contact.
     
  23. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    well, this was a case of Denies Goalscoring Opportunity Handling. But for his handling the ball would have gone in the goal. Just like a player standing on the goal line handling the ball to stop a goal.
     
  24. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    I understand that, but the quality of the scoring chance is significantly decreased by, according to WiR 25, the angle that has been reduced by Keller coming out. From that distance, how do we know the attacker doesn't put it over the crossbar as he tries to chip Keller? Or put it wide because Keller has reduced the angle?

    In all honesty, I'm not arguing with the handball call here; frankly, I don't have a problem with the red card either, under all of the parameters we have been previously asked to apply.

    But with the argument made in WiR 25, I think it puts the issue of this being an "obvious" GSO into doubt. Which is where the problem with WiR 25 is coming from...
     
  25. DadOf6

    DadOf6 Member

    Jul 4, 2005
    Taylorsville, UT
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think the WiR applies only to DG-F. Keller's send off was DG-H so the 4 D's do not apply and I would argue that the angle would not apply either. The only question is "Was the ball headed into the goal?"
     

Share This Page