ball played into space toward top corner of the penalty area Goal keeper comes out. Attacker gets to ball first and pushes pat the keeper. Keeper fouls player (two hand push). Attacker fights through...advantage played....two touches toward goal then player shanks shot and misses. Foul occurs just outside the box. Keeper clearly last player.
The way that you are describing it, I would say that it is a DOGSO send off. This would be a DOGSO send off even if it were in the penalty area because there was no attempt to even play the ball by the goalkeeper.
Anybody else old enough to remember the song "Three Coins in the Fountain?" That would make a nice tune for "Two Bites at the Apple," don't you think? But I see this foul was just outside the apple crate PA, so never mind. Here, advantage played and materialized. Caution keeper and restart with GK.
My only question is was the attacker able to regain his balance prior to the shot. If it's a shove, he stumbles, collects himself, takes two touches then shanks it, sorry, no DOGSO for you. However, if it's a shove, several off balance strides during which he accidentally touches the ball twice, then falls over while making his shot, I think I'm going to have to go DOGSO. Need more information than the OP provides to be sure.
It's a bit hard to tell with such an short and unclear description of the incident. But unless you think that the attacker wasn't affected by the foul then I think you really need to give it as DOGSO even after playing the advantage otherwise you have actually disadvantaged the attacker by playing the advantage and that is, in the longer run, the same thing as telling players that they shouldn't try to keep playing after they think they've been fouled.
first....thanks for all the replies. Second...I agree with this. The attacker had a choice of falling down....or trying to score. He falls down....red card and dfk outside the box. Nobody questions it. Plays the remainder of the game up a man. Fights through and tries to score....doesn't play up a man the rest of the game. Doesn't seem fair. There was no doubt the goal keeper was attempting to deny a goal scoring opportunity....just didn't push the kid hard enough. Fwiw....my son was the defending team. Let's just say my opinion differed from the rest of the parents on my team.
This was the argument everyone made. I get it...just don't see how that could be in the spirit of the rule. Not all fouls result in a player not being able to play through it. Of it's a clear foul....and the fouling player is the last man and the attacker has a clear goal scoring opportunity...don't see how you can't send the defender off
I'm not sure that's relevant. Applying the advantage clause negates the stoppage and re-start but it doesn't negate the misconduct.
It can -- if advantage materializes and there is STILL an obvious goal scoring opportunity, then it wasn't denied. Now we're at the stage of simply interfering with a promising attack.
If you are to argue that (which I'm not sure the letter of the law allows for) then you have to be darn sure that the foul didn't affect the attacker at all.
A foul that doesn't affect the attacker at all would be trifling and of no interest. A foul outside the area on which advantage is played, followed by not one but two touches and a shot, is a missed chance and bad luck (but still cautionable if tactical or reckless). We can reserve for another day revisiting the advantage-on-a-foul-in-the-area question.
Tactical foul was clear. Last man was clear. Attempt to deny a goal scoring was clear. I just don't see how you can punish the attacker (and the attacking team) by fighting through a fouls rather than going down.
Part of it is personal survival. It would be very difficult to get the defending team to accept a red here if the player completely recovers his balance and misses a shot at a completely open goal. That doesn't mean it's the right call necessarily, but it is a consideration for many.
You're basically arguing that if there's no goal then advantage is not realized. That used to be USSF guidance for fouls in the area, and there was no agreement on it here even then. It's certainly not the case outside the area. Where are you going to draw the line? Attacker recovers and takes three touches and a shot? Four? Alternatively, I suppose what you might be arguing for is a send off not for DOGSO but for attempted DOGSO. That's not the Law.
If the attacker regained his balance and completely pooched the play after the fact, advantage materialized, and the obvious goal scoring opportunity was not denied. If the attacker was still stumbling and takes the shot badly off-balance, then the advantage isn't really materializing, and thus the OGSO is being denied...
Careful with this logic. As written, it would mean that a defender could pull an attacker's jersey for 10 yards on a breakaway, but so long as the attacker fights through to get a shot off, the OGSO was never denied. Now, maybe on a trifling hold this would be true. But if a foul occurs to the point that you're waiting and seeing to determine if advantage materializes, that means you have to at least strongly consider that the foul denied an OGSO if the play doesn't result in a goal. It's an art here, not science but more often than not you're going to have a red card. For example, if due to the foul the attacker is consequently is off-balance when he shoots, or is closed down by the goalkeeper, or is able to be challenged as he shoots...all those factors are making the OGSO less likely and they all happen because of the foul. Conversely, if an attacker breaks free, clearly has his footing and then just misses the goal? Well, that's on him. But the main point here is that just because an attacker still has an opportunity to score after a foul does not mean that an OGSO was not denied. @sulfur, above, says all this pretty succinctly. To the original question, it's hard to say from a written or hypothetical description. But it sounds like the other posts here have helped already.
OK, YHTBT. But I'm really hard pressed to envision a situation where you play advantage outside the area, the attacker recovers, dribbles, shoots and misses, and you come back and give a red card. That sounds like run-not-walk-to-the-parking-lot time to me.
To the center's credit, he took a long time talking with his linesman before giving the red. In retrospect...it's possible he gave the red for the foul itself as opposed to DOGSO. Goalie pretty much attempted to tackle (oval) the attacker as he went by (picture a corner back trying to shove a player out of bounds). Had he succeeded and knocked the attacker off his feet...I could see a red. Like I said...I thought it was fair and certainly would have expected a red if the roles were reversed...just wasn't sure if advantage cancelled DOGSO in this instance. Thanks again.
All we have to go off is what the OP writes. The way I read it, this is clearly not DOGSO. He doesn't say anything about the push affecting the shot. I don't think anyone is flat out wrong in their comments, but many are adding conditions to the situation that were not part of the question. If the jersey is still in the defender's grasp when the shot is taken, this is not even remotely the same as what the OP described.
Well it's a good question and one that I personally am interested to see if we all are on the same page on. So, to state the, well my, question clearly: Assume a clear DOGSO foul outside the area that we decide to play advantage on. Assume further that the advantage materializes in that the attacker plays through, fully recovers, takes a shot and misses. My view is that you would never award a DOGSO send off in that situation. Does anybody disagree with that? In other words, yes the advantage, assuming it materializes (however you want to define that short of requiring a scored goal) does nullify the DOGSO?
I agree that is the ultimate questions, but I don't know that there is any official guidance on this (at least nothing I can think of). But I also don't think the standard for advantage is necessarily identical to the standard for not having denied an OGSO. The standard for advantage does not consider pre-foul circumstances with post-foul circumstances; advantage compares the opportunity that exists post-foul with the benefits of the foul being called (and we can debate whether that should include the send off for DOGSO -- I had never thought so, but that recent POTW suggests we should). Depending on where outside the PA the foul was, what it takes to be better than the FK is going to vary. I'm not ready to say there is an absolute rule here that a flubbed advantage means no DOGSO, but I think it is highly likely that a flubbed advantage means the OGSO was not denied. I think it is both a very unusual play, and a very fact specify, have to be there call. But before we get there, I'd also say it is going to have to be an awfully good scoring opportunity before I'm going to play advantage on a DOGSO-send off foul.
This, definitely this. That's more or less what I'm getting at, I think. If it's not the same standard (at least as a practical matter of interpretation and application), do we admit to the (remote, but theoretical) possibility of a DOGSO send off even when a goal is scored on the advantage? I don't want to go there, even theoretically.