IFK DOGSO

Absolutely, positively not. It is DOGSO not DOGK -- and all the defender, in either scenario, did is deny a GK.

 

I agree with Socal that you can't deny a goal that would have been disallowed. I would, however, be inclined to give a caution to the defender. It is the same logic as if it had been a direct kick, the defender had handled the ball and was unsuccessful at keeping it out of the goal.

In the second example, I would have to give an IFK from the GA line for the keeper playing in a dangerous manner.

 

How is that PIADM? Probably USB for using the crossbar as a tool, resulting in an IFK.

On the straight handling, dunno if I'd card. Depends on the exact nature of the handling and the temperature. Explaing that he just turned a GK into a PK may be enough.

 

First example: Deliberate handling. Restart with PK (or FK if handling is outside of PA).
Second example: Yellow card for unsporting behavior. IFK if done by the keeper. PK if done by other defender.
In all cases, special medal awarded for defensive stupidity.

 

The presence of an attacker doesn't change anything here. If the handling prevented the ball from going in, then the restart is, as stated above, a PK. You cannot give a red card here for something that can't happen.

Or you could let a silent advantage play out and watch the attacker put the ball in. Doesn't change your ability to yellow card the defender, but you can't red card anyone here.

 

This is similar to a recert question from the last two years about a defender taking a throw-in, throwing it toward his own goalkeeper who touches the ball with his hands to prevent it from going in the goal. If it goes in, play advantage, award the goal. If not, it's an IFK (if in the PA) or a DFK (if handled outside the PA) but no send-off since there's no way to score a goal directly from a throw-in.

 

Oh, I think I finally understand what you are saying.

1) If an IFK is taken, and it would have gone into the net but for some idiot defender who deliberately handles it, NOT dogso. Cuz it was not going to be a goal.

2) If there is an attacker standing next to our genius defender, still not dogso. In fact, if the ref notices and plays advantage, maybe even CREATING an ogso (as opposed to denying one)! So, still no red.

3) However, if the attacker is about to play the ball, and the defender commits a deliberate handling offense to keep him from scoring, then YES! DOGSO. That's not the ball about to go into the net. That's the ball about to be played by an attacker who has an ogso.

 

I'm sure we've had this discussion before, but can you send off a player for DOGSO for committing a foul preventing a possible goal by an attacker who hasn't yet possessed the ball? In your scenario, I envision the IFK played in the air to an attacker who, perhaps, will attempt to head it or volley it into the goal but can't because it's deflected by the defender's handling. Given the 4D's and all that, can it be a DOGSO sendoff?

 

I am standing at the top of the 6. My teammate has the ball 1 yard in front of me. The only defender on this half of the field is the GK, standing right behind me. My teammate passes the ball gently back to me. I wind up to take the shot, and the keeper grabs my foot.

I've made everything as absurdly OBVIOUS as I can to get at this: "for committing a foul preventing a possible goal by an attacker who hasn't yet possessed the ball?"

Sure. Why not?

 

Possession of the ball is not a criteria for DOGSO. As OldRef pointed out, there are plenty of situations where the attacker doesn't have possession but has a clear OGSO.

It's hard to not over think DOGSO since we have so much training material around it, but just keep it simple. I think I've said it before, but I try and classify events in my head during dynamic play near the goal as OGSO or non-OGSO. That makes the ultimate decision easier for me (Oh, it was an OGSO and it got denied. Back pocket it is!)

 

Exactly.
Corner kick.
Attacker waiting for clear header.
Defender wipes attacker.
Assuming everything is present, DOGSO may be called.

 

So you agree that that scenario can be a red for DOGSO?????

 

I agree with that.
But Rich asked "Can you send off a player for DOGSO for committing a foul preventing a possible goal by an attacker who hasn't yet possessed the ball?"
The answer is a clear "yes"


EDIT: With the August 18, 2011, AskARef, I don't think the debate about "direction of play" vs. "direction of ball" exists any more.

 

While I, too, think the answer is "yes," I'm not so confident that it is "clear."

Currenlty ATR 12.37 says

The way the language is frames implies that the victim already has possession of the ball, and suggests that a player awaitng a pass cannot have an OGSO. I don't think that's what was really intended, but a side effect of getting too specific while not pondering all scenarios -- especially since the language of the I&G sasy "the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball." I really don't think USSF was picking a fight with IFAB on this point. Alas, however, the language of the ATR clouds the issue and, IMHO, makes it difficult to say that the answer to this question is "clear." (Cue ongoing debate about whether the ATR 4 Ds contradict the I&G . . . .)

On the question of whether it is possible on an IFK to have DOGSO if the offense preventst the ball from reaching an opponent, I'd agree it is possible -- but extremely unlikely. Needs to be an awfully good ball, a controlled place, and not more than one other defender (most likely, perhaps if the defense was setting an OS line on a kick that went up and over). (Under USSF guidance, it would be DOGSO-F because the ball was not about to enter the goal.)

 

I had read the "to continue" in the ATR and thought the same thing, that it implied possession.

Here's a goal (starting at 1:28):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Hb6LePtDcSs#t=87s

Would you send off either of the blue defenders if they had jumped up and deflected the cross away with their hands preventing Benzema from heading it in? I think this is the kind of play being considered as DOGSO in these discussions (and it was the first video example I could locate).

 

Yes, I realize the ball was a bit too high to potentially swat away, but it was the first video I found that seemed to illustrate the point and I was going more on the hypothetical - if it had occurred.