If you apply advantage on a foul that fits the requirements of DOGSO is it possible for an additional DOGSO opportunity to occur and both be shown a red card resulting in two sent off? I think we established a simultanous foul was impractical. DOGSO is misconduct not a foul and is the only red card offence that must occur while the ball is in play. If advantage is applied to a foul that meets the DOGSO criteria and a goal scoring oportunity eventually happens but is missed is it always the same opportunity? I believe there could be occasion to award the 2nd dogso red card based on the wording of the advice but is this true? Yes or No say it is or is not so? USSF ATR 12.39 APPLYING THE ADVANTAGE Part 1 Even if the referee makes use of the advantage clause during an obvious goalscoring opportunity, he can still punish the offender after the fact. If a goal is scored directly despite the attempted intervention by a defender handling the ball, fouling an opponent, or committing misconduct, the offender cannot be sent off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but he can still be cautioned for unsporting behavior or sent off for serious foul play if the foul involved excessive force. Part 2 However, if in these circumstances the goal was scored following a second or immediately subsequent play of the ball, the offender must nevertheless be sent off because his action prevented a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity during the first play when the infringement occurred. Could anyone give me an example of a difference in the phrase "scored directly" as in the first part of advantage and "the goal was scored following a second or immediately subsequent play of the ball,"
I think it refers to something as follows: Player A is taken down (OGSO), advantage is applied as Player B bears down on goal. His shot is saved, rebounded, ball is kicked around a bit, and then Player C (or even Player A or B for that matter) shoots at goal and the ball is handled on the goal line (OGSO). That's your two OGSO's on two separate plays. Now, this is one of those cases where you're well within your rights to show two red cards for the two offences. But, who in their right mind would actually follow through with both punishments? This is probably a scenario that will occur for each of us once (at most) in our entire careers. If it comes up, my advice would be to issue the "second" red card, give the penalty, and swallow what should have been the "first" red card. No one would say a word.
I agree with MR, except that I would also consider any misconduct above DOGSO that may have occurred. If the orginal takedown of player A was a foul worthy of a yellow or red card, then that still applies. For game management it would probably be less necessary.
Actually, MR, while the first misconduct might have been serious foul play, during an obvious goalscoring opportunity, it was not a "Denial" therefore only the second foul "the handling" met that standard of "denying". This does not, hoever, mean that two send-off's may not be warranted, one for SFP, and the other for DOGSO. Bo coincidence, I had a similar situation earlier this week where an attacker was on a break directly on goal outside the PA, and was simultaneously fouled from behind by one defender while a second tackled cleanly. I called the DFK, only because I felt the keeper was sufficinetly close to the line for it not to be an OGSO. Both team's spectators were upset at the call though the attacker's side settled down after the DFK went in the net. There was grumbling that "It shoulda been a card" while the defenders though I had done a terrible job since it had been "all ball". Law 22 rears its ugly head again.
This is the perfect example as to why advantage should really not be applied to a red card situation. It might not seem fair in the short run, but in the long run there really is no advantage to be had whether there's a follow up shot on goal or not. Here's the rationale: Let's assume Player B does have that direct shot on goal, but it is deflected or misses with the ball still in play. Now you have a situation where a player needs to be ejected but play is continuing with no real way to stop. You can't call back for the foul with advantage not materializing, because advantage did but B simply didn't capitalize from it. You can't stop the game to issue a card and restart with an IFK for the same reason you can't call the foul -- no specific instance has occurred to warrant the stoppage for the carding since the original reason for the card was a foul DOGSO. So, play continues. If you are lucky the attacking team will be professional enough to not retaliate for play not stopping. To them it probably won't matter whether advantage was applied or not they just feel they deserve that direct shot on goal. If they do retaliate, well now you have a red card on both teams and the restart in favor of the defense! Now you have managed to piss off BOTH teams. If the attacking team does not retaliate for the no-call on DOGSO (in their mind), play continues as described and another DOGSO occurs but this time by yet another defender. Now you have two red-card fouls committed in the same play all because you applied advantage for a probable score that didn't happen. Does this mean that you can simply ignore the first DOGSO and let the player get away with it? Of course not, that would only be confirming that you are making a non-call to the attackers -- a suspicion they had in the first place. You are opening the door for them to retaliate if they haven't already done so. They know you need to red card that player as do the defenders, and if you don't you open the door to much much worse offenses and a lack of confidence in your ability by both teams. They'll figure "hey, he doesn't have the guts to eject the initial guy for his foul so we can probably get away with anything!" On the same token, now everybody is aware yet another defender has committed a DOGSO foul and needs to be ejected. How? Because this time you did stop play. So obviously you need to deal with him as well -- two red cards plus whatever the restart is, most likely a PK. I think the outcome of that will be obvious: dissent, bookings, send-offs, and a violent game for the rest of the match. Pretty soon both sides will be extremely pissed off to the point everybody is looking to break the other guy's ankles. Now, based off the descriptions above the question begs to be asked: Is all of this really more advantageous for the attacking team just because there is a chance a goal could be scored? All you have to do as the referee is simply blow your whistle and red card the player without applying advantage. The attackers might be a little upset initially because in the short term it seems unfair. However you, the wise referee that you are, have fully considered these potential outcomes and realize that in the long term you really are doing nobody any favors. The only salvation for applying advantage is if indeed that player successfully scores the goal. I suppose if this match means a lot to the success of the team, like a championship or playoff contention or whatnot, and that potential goal is most likely the game-winner, then you can risk applying advantage. Otherwise you are placing the fate of that game, and probably a lot of injuries, all on whether poor Player B can get that goal for nothing.
Could you explain why you state it is not a denial? If the attacker has an obvious goal-scoring opportunity but is fouled, serious or not, is that not the definition of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity? Although another goal scoring opportunity may present itself from where the ball goes after the first foul, these are to be treated as two seperate plays. It's the same as the example many instructors love to use: A player takes a shot on goal, defender uses his hand to deny it, the ball falls to the attacker's teammate who scores a goal. You still have to red card the defender who blocked the initial shot because he denied THAT scoring opportunity regardless if his action created another one.
are we clear? so the answer is YES it is possible but it is not a good idea much like making a rod for your back when you blow for full time as the ball is on its way crossing the goalline? attacker#1 shoots! defender ONE uses hands to stop a sure goal! rebounds to attacker #2! referee plays advantage! attacker #2 hits an easy chance off the post! defender one was trying to cover attacker #2! another defender # two is now last man back! play continues attacker#1 goes to the ball and shoots again! defender TWO deliberately handles the ball stopping a OGSO! Taken from a friends previous post Imagine this not unrealistic situation. A team is pushing up for an equaliser near the end of the game, all players are in one half except a defender and an attacker on the half way line. The ball is booted clear and the attacker from the half way line is running directly towards the keeper, the defender tries to catch the defender and clearly trips him, both players fall to the floor.. the ball rolls free and stops and a second attacker runs onto the ball heading for goal being chased by another defender the attacker has a wide open net and a ten yard lead on the nearest defender. So his opportunity to score is clearly there. APO correct? His team mate's opportunity was foiled by the 1st defender. Unfortunately a last second poor touch by the attacker enables the speedy defender to just nip the ankle with outstretched legs as he stumbles the ball is booted the ball hits the post and rebounds to the 1st attacker back in the play to slot the post rebound away and the keeper trips and takes takes him out. All three tackles deny the oportunity to score on three seperate attempts. Two defenders and one keeper have all fouled a single opponent with an offence punishable by a free kick. Applying advantage does not mean any misconduct within those fouls is written off it only means the free kick from that point was not as advantagous as the opportunity to advance play. If SFP was present in any of those tackles you would go back and apply the red card my question why is DOGSO any different? THe argument that if advantage is played it means the DOGSO does not apply if ANY goal scoring opportunity resulted. IN the 1st senario the handled ball clearly denied the goal not just the opportunity. There was ANOTHER goal scoring opportunity NOT the same one and it was denied as well by the second handling. I agree applying advantage has risks but where a credible scoring chance is possible or the continuance of attacking play a referee has every right to allow the team of opponents not be thwarted even though one opponent was! It really has to do with the belief or non belief in phases of play what is considered a new situation and what is considered the same situation. I feel it is philosophical in this case as some seek to punish and others look for ways not too. "scored directly" defender handles the ball and hits post and deflects onto the legs of another defender and crosses the goal line for a goal. yellow card only usb "the goal was scored following a second or immediately subsequent play of the ball," I believe any possibility of this phase of play can only be if advantage is applied. In effect it is saying that even if a goal is scored we still punish the misconduct. FOR two DOGSO situations to be possible the goal is not being scored following a second or immediately subsequent play of the ball in fact what if a goal is not scored in either case? The fouls occur and two scoring opportunities thwarted by two seperate fouls both punisghable by a free kick and all DOGSO criteria met. Granted it may seem harsh but in law is it correct? DOGSO is misconduct not a foul!
Here's my read "attacker#1 shoots! defender ONE uses hands to stop a sure goal! rebounds to attacker #2! referee plays advantage! attacker #2 hits an easy chance off the post! defender one was trying to cover attacker #2! another defender # two is now last man back! play continues attacker#1 goes to the ball and shoots again! defender TWO deliberately handles the ball stopping a OGSO! " You should blow the whistle after attacker #1 was denied the OGSO, not play advantage. The first denial was a foul and DOGSO (auto red), and play should be stopped for handling. Advantage is not appropriate in this instance because stopping play and awarding a penalty kick is more of an advantage than allowing play to continue. By calling APO you are actually putting the attacking team at a disadvantage. The second benefit is there is no second handling, no second red card and everything is much more clear. Second scenario "The ball is booted clear and the attacker from the half way line is running directly towards the keeper, the defender tries to catch the defender and clearly trips him, both players fall to the floor.. " Depends on how close the attacker was to the goal whether this is DOGSO, it's certainly a foul. "the ball rolls free and stops and a second attacker runs onto the ball heading for goal being chased by another defender the attacker has a wide open net and a ten yard lead on the nearest defender" You could call APO depending on the position of the second attacker and how quickly he was able to scoop up the ball but if the ball has time to roll free and stop before the second attacker played it I'd be reluctant to call APO but this is a YHTBT. I would probably blow my whistle before the second attacker got to the ball, award a DFK and, depending on the proximity to the goal, either red card the first defender or not. The rest of the story was a little hard to follow and I'm not quite sure what you're describing.