HOU vs. DC DOGSO [R]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Justin Z, Jul 19, 2012.

  1. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Hadn't seen this posted so I thought I would.

    http://www.mlssoccer.com/video/2012/07/15/highlights-hou-vs-dc

    At about :50.

    Seeing this live I thought, "that's a yellow for the reckless tackle." Not really endangering the safety, I didn't think. Then the red gets pulled. I'm assuming for DOGSO, not the quality of the tackle--the MLS site simply gives the reason as "foul" and doesn't even list it as a sendoff. But assuming it was . . .

    I'm fine with everything except distance to ball, whether we're talking USSF or the rest of the world as far as the elements goes. That was a REALLY heavy touch toward the goal line, the kind designed to draw a penalty, so I don't see how it can be a DOGSO. I don't think Kandji even gets to the ball running full speed before it goes over the goal line. Had he put a reasonable touch on it, Hamid still might've cleaned him out, but he probably would have also gotten some ball, and at that level referees don't tend to call penalties on keepers when they get some of the ball.

    Thoughts? This wasn't one of the better games I've seen out of Anno, or anybody, this year in MLS. In addition to this DOGSO, he gave a penalty late that was fortunately called back for offside. The ball very clearly hit an attacker's arm, not a defender's (if you have MLS Live, it's at about 16:30 of the condensed version), so a pretty inexcusable call. Anno also just seemed kind of . . . disconnected. Vague, I know, but hard to put into words exactly what I mean.
     
  2. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member+

    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    At full speed, I too had concerns about whether he would have picked the ball back up in time. I think the replay shows he could have. It's a good call for me.
     
  3. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC
    I think this is one of those classic plays where the USSF makes us over-think what is obvious to everyone else.
    Anywhere else on the world, it's one on one with the keeper, he gets fouled, DOGSO.
    Here, we have to analyze the 4 Ds.
    Watch the video...no one on DC complains. They all know it's a red.
    Anno could have used the 4 Ds to talk himself out of it. I'm glad he didn't...and I'm a DC fan.
     
    SA14mars and fairplayforlife repped this.
  4. Scrabbleship

    Scrabbleship Member

    May 24, 2012
    Slightly off-topic Q: Before I came to the BS boards, I had never heard of these magical "4Ds". Why did USSF decide to create some sort of guidelines for DOGSO, when much larger organizations seem content with letting FIFA do the explaining?
     
  5. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    I don't mind DOGSO here- I agree that we over think 4d's often.

    My preference here is pk with no send off. The touch to the outside and the resultant angle to the goal combined with a defender hauling ass to try to cover the goal means that the goal is not inevitable without the foul. In 4d parlance, fails on "defender," which in this case is not further up field, but closer to goal and would have a play on a sharp angle shot.
     
  6. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    1) Because about a decade ago there were several instances of MLS referees opting not to punish clear DOGSO fouls appropriately. The irony of the 4 Ds is that it was first introduced in order to prevent referees from wiggling out of the tough decisions. It then evolved--rather quickly, in my opinion--to be a crutch for referees to talk themselves out of DOGSO reds. It hasn't helped that, at different times, USSF has actually said each of the 4 components must be "obvious" in their own right and has always insisted that all 4 criteria must be present.

    2) Much larger organizations do have their own guidelines. UEFA--which I guess is technically the largest insofar as revenue and maybe even insofar as referee registration figures--has a 6-point set of guidelines.
     
    La Rikardo and Scrabbleship repped this.
  7. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You hit on one of my pet peeves about DOGSO interpretation.

    First, the goal doesn't have to be "inevitable." The opportunity just needs to be obvious.

    But that's not the big issue I have with your post. You talk about a defender hauling ass to cover the goal and how that might trip up the "defender" requirement of the 4 Ds. This is incorrect. The foul was on the goalkeeper. Even if that defender gets back, he is one defender (and one that can't use his hands, it should be pointed out). If all other requirements are present, the doubt over that one defender getting back to cover should never negate DOGSO because the goalkeeper is out of the equation.

    By the way, my personal opinion is that this was a good card. But I wouldn't have a problem if a referee said "no red" because--in his opinion--he didn't think the attacker would get to the ball in time. That part is really a judgment call.
     
    chwmy repped this.
  8. Scrabbleship

    Scrabbleship Member

    May 24, 2012
    Are said guidelines posted online somewhere? Wouldn't mind having a look at them, and a quick Google search came up with nothing.
     
  9. Paper.St.Soap.Closed

    Jul 29, 2010
    GoDawgsGo and Justin Z repped this.
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  11. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC
  12. Paper.St.Soap.Closed

    Jul 29, 2010
    Haha, no, sadly they do not... :)

    My damn bazinga backfired on me!
     
    akindc repped this.
  13. Scrabbleship

    Scrabbleship Member

    May 24, 2012
    BOOM!!

    Thanks for the proper link MassRef :p
     
  14. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    You are absolutely correct- not the first time I have forgotten that :(. (goes back to studying for grade 8 recert)
     
  15. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thought of another point that might help answer your original question. The publication of the 4 Ds preceded the inclusion of the current IFAB/FIFA DOGSO explanation in the LOTG I&G.

    Now, I've been told that the 4 Ds either came from approved FIFA teaching or had FIFA's blessing in some manner, but at the time the 4 Ds memo was issued, there was no formal, written DOGSO instruction from FIFA that was published for mass consumption*.

    *I add the italicized caveat because I'm sure there had to be DOGSO instruction from FIFA for the referees at FIFA-level tournaments.
     
  16. RedStar91

    RedStar91 Member+

    Sep 7, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    Forget DOGSO, isn't it SFP as well? Hamid needs to stop being so reckless coming out of the box.

    Also, I'm really not a fan of the Mexican style PK call. It draws way too much attention to yourself. Everyone knows that it's a penalty kick, no need to show us where the restart is.
     
  17. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's not a totally crazy idea, but I don't think it quite applies here. Looks late and reckless, but I don't know if you can make the leap to excessive force. He used the force necessary to win the ball and he didn't do anything dirty like raise his leg or expose his studs.

    Just for the record, I'm pretty sure Collina always went to the spot, so not sure why you consider it "Mexican style."

    Also, there is some logic to the maneuver in situations like this. It gives the referee an extra 2-3 seconds to replay the incident and consider the misconduct. Yes, I'm sure that some officials do it just for show. But not all. If you put your body into autopilot and go to the spot before the player in cases like this, you give yourself extra time to think, which can be valuable as long as you don't use it to second-guess the right decision.
     
  18. iron81

    iron81 Member+

    Jan 6, 2011
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I thought the reason for standing at the spot is that otherwise the signal for PK looks similar to the signal for a goal kick.
     
  19. soccerking1990

    Aug 11, 2010
    Texas
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So I was talking to an AR during half-time of a local tournament match. I had called a penalty kick, and did exactly what the Guide to Procedures informs us we should do. He asked me why I ran past the penalty mark to the goal line. I told him that that is how we are taught according to the GtP. He then told me that, while that was correct, he had a match with a FIFA from South America at the Tampa Sunbowl. After he called a penalty kick during a match, the FIFA asked him the same question about running to the goal line. The FIFA thought it looked cowardly to run past the penalty mark.
    I never thought about how it might appear to the players, but I think he has a valid point. I still do as the GtP says, but that's just something to think about. Is it better to appear confident about your decision, or to prevent momentary dissent?
     
  20. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    The play in the OP is a clear red. It is also included in the Instant Replay compilation published on the MLS website.
    The USSF instruction for where to go when calling a PK has flipped back and forth. I go to the spot because that is how I was taught when I started.
     
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not sure that's a good reason--only time it would come into play is if the ball has also left the field; plus, the strength of your whistle should be different for a PK as opposed to a goal kick. Also, as soccerking alludes to, I'm pretty sure our instructions (GtP?) at some point say "there is no need to run to the spot" or something of the sort. I think it's discouraged by USSF, but not banned outright as a mechanic. Could be wrong on that.

    We've had a debate about this before and it was pretty interesting. Will see if I can find the thread. I'm of the firm believe that using the goal line as the crutch to manage dissent is not a good mechanic. I wouldn't say it looks "cowardly," but it does make it look like you are fearful of the result of your decision. And if you're going to book for dissent on a PK, just do it--don't visually announce that the only way you will sanction dissent is if someone commits the technical offence of leaving the field.

    Now, that mini-rant is against the issue of going to the goal line. If all the South American FIFA you reference said is "don't run past the spot," I think I do disagree there. There's no need to linger at the spot and call more attention to yourself. After you get to the spot and point (if you use this mechanic), I think the right move is just to continue deliberately to the corner of the goal area and take up a spot that you don't move from until the penalty is set (assuming there was no misconduct). You are out of the middle of the field and in a position near where you eventually should be for the penalty. Players would have to go out of their way to come dissent, but you're also not fleeing the field to establish that separation. Just my two cents, as there are obviously multiple ways to call and sell a PK--and situations will, of course, vary.
     
  22. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bill C repped this.
  23. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    What is most important to remember is that the 4Ds and other such concepts are just guidelines to give referee some parameters to work with. They are not absolute hard and fast rules or Laws. The main criterion is found in the word "obvious." If it looks like an obvious goal scoring situation to an experienced referee, then the player concerned should be sent off. In the present case Anno considered it to be obvious.
    Too many referees get too hung up on the 4Ds.

    PH
     
  24. Pierre Head

    Pierre Head Member+

    Dec 24, 2005
    AS for calling PKs, going to the spot makes it easy for defenders to dissent, especially the keeper. It is then more difficult to show the yellow card. But if the referee goes off to the side of the PA, (not off the field) and the defenders approach, and do not stop when waved away, then the caution is on them.

    Going to the side prevents problems, and is certainly not cowardly, it's smart.

    PH
     
  25. hefftheref

    hefftheref Member

    May 24, 2007
    Nat'l Team:
    United States


    I thought this situation felt familiar... same referee, same keeper, very early in the match (although very different tackles)
     

Share This Page