Professional foul rule to be debated

If I was a defender in the PA and I thought the opposition had a real good chance of scoring and I couldn't stop him without fouling, I would, with the rules as they are, take a lot of things into consideration, but most likely would avoid the foul. However, if I knew a red card wasn't coming if I fouled the player I'd think the best bet would be to foul.

 

This just mentions fouls, but what about dogso-h, particularly when it's right on the goalline and there's no other way to stop a shot. I can understand the sentiment about the harshness of the current rule if the penalty kick is converted, but if you really think the attacker has a great opportunity, then why not take your chances that the pk is missed or saved. Surprisingly, the conversion rate really isn't as great as you'd think or expect, and changing the rule back to the way it used to be would only encourage defenders to force more goals to be scored from the spot. For me, I think that would be a big step backwards for the game as the auto-red has succeeded in taking some very cynical strategizing out of the game.

The compromise position that I've previously heard tossed around over a nice pint is to hold the red card in abeyance. If the pk is converted, you get to stay in the game, but if it's missed, then you're gone. It makes the punishment less severe if the goal happens anyway but doesn't reward a defender for purposefully taking a chance like this. And, I really kind of like the notion of a team deciding early in the game to miss the pk on purpose so that they can play the rest of the game up a player.....

 

except the defending team decides it would rather play a goal down than with 11 men.

Attacker scuffs pk to send it weakly out-of-play. GK will have none of that and deflects it back in to the goal.

hey - it could happen.

 

DOGOSO doesn't have to happen in the box. In fact, the defender will do everything they can to foul the attacker before they reach the penalty area. If the only sanction is a free kick, maybe a yellow, we're right back to the bad old days.

 

DOGSO should have an additive effect. A tactical or reckless foul that would normally be a caution should be a send-off if it is also a DOGSO. A careless foul that is a DOGSO should only be cautioned. Often such a foul will also earn a PK. A DOGSO-H would either be a caution or send-off, at the discretion of the referee, similar to the way non-DOGSO handballs today are either a caution or no caution, at the discretion of the referee.

If a player were to deliberately, tactically, deny an opponent a goal with his hand, but the opponent subsequently missed the PK, would you consider the result fair?

 

I think you guys are mostly right. However.

I've long held the belief that one reason Dallas didn't call handling on Frings is because the sanction is SO harsh. Even if you don't buy it for that specific call, we've all seen plays where a referee didn't make the call, and you, as a spectator, have to be thinking, he was afraid to make such a big call. I think the double sanction makes it easier for refs to give defenders the benefit of the doubt. The ref doesn't want to "decide the match."

The proposal is ONLY for fouls that lead to PKs.

 

Oops, missed that. Mea Culpa.

But even so, we know plenty of defenders who would take their chances with the penalty if there was a chance they wouldn't be sent off. Again, back to the bad old days.

 

well...I dunno, I think you need the deterrent. In a DOGSO, even if a penalty is awarded, the play goes from a 100% chance of a goal(or close to it) to a 90% chance of a goal(or whatever the percentage of penalties converted is). It's hard to say the penalty is too harsh...when someone denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity, they know what they're doing generally, and they know the penalty.


Also, can you imagine all the abuse we'd take from coaches ignorant of the rule change if we didn't give a red for a DOGSO?

 

First of all, to the OP, there is nothing in the laws or other guidance regarding DOGSO that says the foul has to be intentional. So can we please drop that idea permanently. If it's a foul and it denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity, it's a DOGSO regardless of the defender's intent.

I don't think the sanction is too harsh. I mean really, at the pro level aren't PK's about 50% successful in the first place. So if I've got an attacker going in on a open goal and the only way I can stop him from taking the shot is to foul him, I'm going to do it because the 50/50 PK still gives me a better chance of keeping points off the board than letting the attacker shoot on an open net. This is why the send-off and subsequent suspension are in place.

Look at it in simple terms of the worst case scenario. A player cheats to take away what is a 95% likelihood of a goal (shot on an open net) to produce a situation that is only 50% likely to result in a goal (a PK). How is that a harsh punishment?

 

I'm pretty sure the conversion rate for a PK is much higher than 50%

 

I think it is useful in this discussion to have some historical perspective. The reason why the concept of DOGSO was codified into the Laws is because referees were not sending players off for these kinds of fouls. When there were send-offs, it was written up as SFP. In Spirit it was felt that "DOGSO" fouls should result in a send-off, so the addition was made to guarantee that players were sent-off for DOGSO.

There is a good video of a UCL game when this happens, and the coach is yelling to the 4th official (a young Markus Merk) that "[he] knows" the opposing defender should be sent. This was before DOGSO was written in, but in the minds of the participants a foul that denied a goal-scoring opportunity should result in a sending-off, even if there was not a specific category in the Laws.

Is there the same gut feeling when it comes to PK/DOGSO combo situations? I think the answer to that question should guide any change.

 

I think you have your percentages backwards. A attacker under pressure from the last defender, is probably less likely to score than a PK. I believe PKs are closer to 80+% success. So a defender putting pressure on an attacker might have a better chance just putting on pressure but not fouling.

Of course this all changes when its the keeper who is the last defender or a DGH call, but the last defender when there is still the keeper back, might have a better chance putting on pressure, at least he can remove one option from the attack.

 

As a fan, we might debate proposed rule changes by considering its impact on ethereal concepts like Spirit of the Game, or whether the penalty is Fit or Just, whether it is Right or Wrong, with capital letters. That's fine drink up, and opine away.

As referees, we might look at proposed rule changes by considering whether the change takes something out of our toolbox, adds something to it, or replaces one tool for another, possibly more or less useful one.

I would suggest that the triple whammy of RC, PK and suspension constitutes a HUGE hammer. Depending on how the proposed change is implemented, this will either take that hammer out of the toolbox and replaces it with one that is merely "very large"--YC and PK. Or it will add that intermediate hammer to the box.

What is the difference to a referee? Possibly the preservation of our integrety. There are times when a DOGSO occurs that, it seems to most, a RC is not warrranted. Maybe its a U-12 game, or maybe it is an older game where the defender gets too close, pulls up, and still trips the forward in the penalty area--it wasn't malicious, he didn't really mean to, but still clearly a foul and still clearly the 4D's are met. "Sorry, the rules mandate a Red for that." To carry the metaphor forward, the hammer is too big for the nail and its use damages the surrounding wood. The integrity issue arises if the ref were to decide one of the D's wasn't really there.

As it stands now, the process of evaluating the 4D's gives the referee discretion on when DOGSO is called. Take the foul in the BAY v. FIO game discussed elsewhere, since distance to the ball (control of the ball) was insufficient, the referee called this a foul, hence, PK, but not DOGSO. That is a judgement call, but not one that is clearly wrong.

What if that HUGE hammer is taken away? As has been suggested, there are some times when the biggest hammer is the right hammer, if the DOGSO foul is purely tactical and cynical, or a bit too rough, perhaps. Maybe the Red Card is maintained for those occasions. But if it is a garden variety foul, then maybe this rule should be adjusted. As referees, the best outcome would be to get another tool, without losing the one we have.

 

First off, I think Jay brings up a very good point regarding non-professional type games. While this is a different subject, I do believe that the laws as written are there for the professional game first and foremost. Items such as DOGSO were incorporated due to actions taking place in professional leagues, not the local U-11 boys game. I personally like it when refs do adjust to the U-12 girls or O-35 mens game where a foul wasn't really intentional and a red card is not warranted.

Back to this discussion, I agree that if the rule is changed to reflect the PK/No PK, it will be a step backwards. There still enough challenges that are true DOGSO to show that defenders don't always think. There also are many times when a defender does stop short of bundling over an attacker and the play continues - what I beleive is the intent of the rule. If it were to change, then I would like to see ALL DOGSO fouls result in a PK, regardless of their location on the field. Just an idea.