Attacker #1 is fouled the DOGSO criteria is 100%. The ball pops free and rolls on ahead. Advantage play on the says the referee. Attacker #2 is in an offside position off to the side just can not contain himself and runs to get the ball. Offside says the AR! and up goes the flag. Attacker #3 onside and also running onto this ball is screaming at Attacker #2 "You idiot! leave it your offside!" Whistle goes in response to the AR offside flag. (a)Was that the proper decision and how would you restart? (b)If the offside attacker#2 halted his run at the command of attacker #3? Is it too late if the referee can see attacker 3 will achieve posession? (c)If the offside attacker #2 had remained uninvolved and Attacker #3 gets the ball and goes in for a shot on the goal and scores do we still send off the defender for the DOGSO? -----------------GOAL KEEPER-------------------- --------Attacker #2 ____________________Ball 0 --------------------DOGSO (location of the defender and the 1st attacker) -----------------------------------ATTACKER #3
I'll take first crack. The whistle stops play. So whatever attacker 2 or 3 do after the whistle is irrelevant. You had a DOGSO foul, and blew the whistle (advantage wasn't there - particularly with a flag up for offside.) A red card is appropriate, and the proper restart is a PK or DFK, depending on the location of the foul. As far as the proper call,
probably not the correct call (but a lot depends on the alternate situations propose). if in fact there was no advantage since the play would result in an offside call, the ref should call the DOGSO foul. (also, it wasn't entirely clear from your question, but i assume when you say the ball "pops free" that it was played by the attacker 1 after being fouled. if played by the defender, there can be no foul). as for A3 calling off A2, i think it depends a lot on the situation, where they are on the field, and how other players, such as the goalie, react. when does A2 pull up from the play? did the goalie change his position in response to the aborted run from A2? bottom line, i don't know that there is a clear answer without seeing the play. if A2 impacted play, you have to call it. if not, i think you can acknowledge his pulling up as taking himself out of the play and allow A3 to continue. i'm not sure about (c). you can clearly still card the defender based on the severity of the tackle itself - if it was a brutal tackle from behind that deserved a red, show the red. but where the defender didn't actually "deny" the goal scoring opportunity, because of the advantage call, i'm not sure that DOGSO applies. so, again, i think the delayed card, if any, and it's color, should depend on the tackle itself, not DOGSO.
additional thoughts In the senario we can assume that any touch by the defender in the DOGSO tackle or trip would be classified more likely as a deflection not controled posession but point taken lets assume offside criteria are there. Next is the advantage nullified if an attacker deliberately messes it up by his own stupidity? The offside was only a possibility untill the attacker chose to interact? I once applied advantage on a holding violation just outside the area. The defender had let go and the attacker was inside the penalty area when he elbowed the defender in the nose in retaliation after I had just yelled APO and signalled. I considered the advantage realized then given up by the attacker's own actions and gave a DFK in favour of the defenders and red carded the attacker. As a referee you are seeing onside attacker #3 run onto that free ball a great advantage possibility. The AR is aware attacker #2 is in an offside position and is rightly concerned with that. As a referee you are in shock as the offside attacker #2 wants to involve himself but if you agree with the AR flag you blow. My feeling is INDFK for the defenders and the offside attacker needs to understand he had no business involving himself as the advantage was there but his stupidity prevented it. If you allow the offside then it means you believe advantage was realized. If advantage was realized by saying that Attacker #3 could have shot or possibly scored if attacker #2 had not been such a dummy. The opportunity was there just squandered. Can you red card the defender once the advantage is considered to be achieved? I have a belief that semantics in the wording lead to two different interpretations. the first one and the one I subscribe "to is an opponent" is a singular event denial applies to his opportunity or his shot at glory. the second is if any kind of an additional scoring opportunity occurs after advantage is applied it is the same opportunity and thus not denied. I believe the SAME player that was fouled must be the SAME player who gets that opportunity for this to be true. I agree it is subjective to wave down the offside flag if attacker #2 halts and attacker #3 is in one on one with the keeper . I think it a remote possibility but it is a you had to have been there! In closing if the offside attacker#2 does not involve himself and Attacker#3 shoots and scores are we reluctant to red card the defender because we feel the scoring of a goal was still the same opportunity never denied or that it seems too harsh? I often see a yellow card caution awarded kinda of like a soother to the defender. Even if the DOGSO was only a careless tackle. Yet if the attacker #3 missed his shot or was stopped by the keeper I often see the defender red carded for DOGSO. I find that all other misconduct except DOGSO is given without hesitation if it was present in the original foul after advantage. I just find it interesting the concept of this miscontuct revolves around semantics.
I felt part of the problem is that the whistle was sounded when the AR's flag went up, without waiting to see whether #2 became involved in the play. Having called advantage, but not allowing it to occur, the ref should go back to the DOGSO foul, and red card and restart accordingly.
It's not really a good idea to apply advantage to DOGSO unless the attacker ending up with the ball can walk it in for a goal. The other case is when you simply let the ball go into the goal despite the attempt to deny it. In this instance advantage did not materialize regardless of the offside, and so play should be stopped and restarted with either a DFK or PK for the DOGSO foul after sending off the offender. However, this scenario is virtually impossible as described. Implied in DOGSO is that the foul interferes with the shot by A1. If the ball has enough momentum to carry on through into the goal even with the keeper in position, A2 would have no time to react in finishing the play and chances are we aren't looking at DOGSO. If the shot is interfered with there is no advantage because A2, the only attacker able to finish the goal, is offside. If the referee applies advantage for the offside player to score then he is making a mistake and should try to be more aware of the entire situation.
This is being pretty nitpicky, but how can there be a 100% DOGSO situation and advantage on the same play? To me, this seems a bit of an oxymoron. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but someone please paint this picture for me. If there is another player there to get a scoring oppotunity after a foul, then GSO wasn't really denied was it? If there is a situation like this, I think you'd be hard-pressed to give the advantage and sell that call unless it was bang bang obvious. My instinct would be to stop play ASAP and sent off the player who DOGSO. I mean, here's a player guilty of an automatic send off offense and if that second player doesn't score you're in a world of hurt as a referee because that defender escapes justice on a technicality.
billf your analysis is in line with the USSF position. If WC players miss kicks all the time right in front of the goal mouth it's a pretty safe assumption there is no such thing as a guaranteed goal. However, if a goal is scored from advantage off DOGSO then DOGSO still did occur according to the ATR. Each shot is treated as a seperate occasion regardless of the overall outcome. If you apply advantage to DOGSO and a goal is scored, then a goal is awarded with a kick-off after sending off the offender.
in response to billf, i think we're talking a situation where a forward on a breakaway if taken down from behind, let's say 5-6 yards outside the box. it would clearly warrant the DOGSO call. yet, the ball rolls slightly off to the side, and another attacker is going to come in and pick it up, completely unimpeded. as grizzlie noted, whether GSO was denied or not depends on whether you're referring to the team or the individual. under the rules, it seems pretty clear to me that the ref is permitted to make the DOGSO call and is not prohibited from doing so under these circumstances. the question is whether or not to play the advantage. in response to statesman, i think it is not as clear cut about not playing the advantage. i might agree with your assessment if the DOGSO call is going to result in a penalty kick. given the likelihood of converting a penalty, the advantage had better be extraordinary. but, as in my facts above (and the facts as i understood them here), i think as the attacking team i would prefer to have my second forward continue on the breakaway, rather than a free kick outside the box with the defending team being permitted to reset (even though they're now a man down). this is precisely what the advantage rule is intended to avoid, namely putting the defending team in a better position as a result of their foul. yes, there will be botched breakaways, and then questions about why they didn't get the original call, but that's part of the game. in response to IAsoc, i now see how you're reading the question - whistle immediate with the flag. clearly, if the whistle blows, the offside must be made and you can't change the call once A2 backs off after the whistle. i read it differently - flag, A3 yells, then whistle. my point being, if before the whistle A2 holds up, i believe the ref continues to have the discretion to wave it off unless he believes A2's involvement has interfered with the play. all this said, i still question whether there "should" be an offside call in this case. if A2 is offside, he is offside from the moment the ball is played through (the moment of A1 being tackled). if that's the case, there cannot be an advantage and you should be going back to the DOGSO call. it would be entirely different if the offside arose from a separate play. say, for example, A2 stayed out of the play, but then A3 came in and instead of shooting passed it to A2 in the offside position. now, you've played the advantage, and the attacking team has blown. but in the instant case, the fact that A2 was already in the offside position means that this wasn't an advantage in the first place.
Statesman, one correction. If a goal is scored after applying advantage to DOGSO, and the subsequent run of play a goal is scored you do not send off the defender since the goal was scored. You would only send off a defender if the DOGSO also had the element of serious foul play or violent conduct.
ATR 12.39: If the ball goes directly in the net despite the attempt to commit DOGSO then you are correct, Alberto.
a) Since no advantage was realized (since the play was offside), the whistle should be blown, the defender sent off, and the play restarted with a DFK (or penalty if the foul was in the box). b) Judgment. If A2 was gaining an advantage by being in an offside position, play should be stopped. If he never gains an advantage, play should continue. Remember, too, that once the linesman's flag goes up, it's an awful hard sell to waive him off if the ball ends up in the back of the net c) Whether or not advantage is played, the defender must be sent off.