The reason is presumably because Cunningham knocked the ball ahead toward Ricketts just before the foul, and maybe it wasn't clear if Cunningham would reach the ball first or have much of an OGSO if he did reach it first. Clearly, Berhalter was fortunate not to have been sent off, and I think there is a good chance USSF will skewer Grajeda for not doing so, 'cause dang!
Understood - but PV seems to be treating DOGSO-H and DG-H as one in the same. I don't see how you can deny a goal without a shot on goal? Sure, you can deny the opportunity. But and PV seems to be mixing the two. Am I correct that the only two things to be considered for a DG-H are 1. Was the ball going in the net? 2. Was that stopped by illegal handling? Thanks - I want to make certain I get this correct.
Yes, I am treating them as one in the same. DGH is USSF's abbreviation for DOGSO-H. I guess I don't know what you meant by DG-H.
The GK cannot be called for DOGSO-H on any of the IFK infractions. The LOTG explicitly say that DOGSO-H does not apply to the keeper in his own PA. All of the GK IFK infractions can only occur in the PA. When a referee says "illegal handling", I agree... that's redundant. If we are discussing the handling event as a potential foul, we are clearly not asking whether the handling was legal based on where it occurred or who handled. I'm sorry, I just don't see the need for clarification. And if we're going to be nitpicky, FIFA threw out the term "penal foul" years ago. They're either DFK or IFK offenses.
All this talk of DOGSO reminds me of a what-if. Is a passback to the keeper always punishable by a IDFK? Suppose an attacker is barreling towards a defender to scuffs his pass back to the keeper who is at the top (but in) the PA and picks up the ball for a relatively harmless IFK. Someone reassure me that DOGSO/Red/PK can never result from a passback, only an IFK
Sport Billy - I'm pretty sure the only two codes we're supposed to use in match reports are "DGH" and "DGF." "DOGSO" is just an acronym used to encompass both--an acronym, that of course then leads to people attaching the "F" or "H" onto it. But only "DGH" and "DGF" appear on the 7+7 document.
I'm glad you brought this up. I was scratching my head over it as soon as I saw the replay. The only thing I can think of is that because the defender was able to successfully track back and clear the ball into touch Salazar concluded that it was not an OGSO. His AR (at least according to the commentators on the English language version I saw) thought differently. For me, some of the guidance in the week in review is terrific, and some is just way too arcane. The four D's are complex enough for me to apply, especially on the heels of having to make a foul v. diving decision as both of these plays would have demanded of me, but then to have to include a calculation of angle to goal and distance to keeper as part of that seems like overkill. It feels like overkill too. There has to be some allowance for a common sense judgement that takes into account the spirit of the law, which I think has been overlooked by this guidance.
I understand that. But you and I both know they are different things. PV had me confused - not his fault, mine - but to issue a red for denying a goal with your hand, I need not consider anything other than - Was there illegal handling and was it going in the goal? Correct? PV, sorry to drag you into this.
Depending on whether you decide the scuffed pass is a deliberate kick to an area that the goal keeper can receive it, I believe a referee could find justification for DOGSO-F. However, the restart would not be a PK, it would be an IFK from the point of the infraction. Personally, I think this would be extremely hard to sell under your description. A more clear cut case for the type of DOGSO-F you are asking about might be a jail-break in which the defender tracks down the lone attacker who is streaking toward goal with the ball and with a slide tackle pokes the ball toward the keeper in the PA who snatches it off the foot of the attacker. Again, you are going to have to be ready to sell this decision.
The tackle itself was borderline SFP if I recall correctly. I think Berhalter really should have gone. All in all, some seriously screwy refereeing this weekend, especially on Sunday.
I will now light myself on fire. I agree with you 100% on this. Salazar was the referee on the WiR clip, and now this. If USSF doesn't issue some sort of lengthy explanation, I am going to be extremely disappointed. When FIFA referees, the guys we are supposed to use as our guiding examples, look like they have no idea what to do, we are in major trouble. Again, I think all four D's are present... even on replay, the ball is clearly heading into the goal, and without the grab by Reis, Lillingston is going to beat the NE defender to the ball. Ye gods, Reis didn't even get CAUTIONED for that!?!? I mean, even if you argue somehow yourself out of the send-off, it's as bloody as tactical a foul as you will ever see. No, no, no, no, no. No! Two reasons... first, the LOTG explicitly say: So we cannot send a GK off for handling the ball in the PA. Second, the LOTG also say: A backpass, a throw-in from a teammate, and a keeper who has punted the ball into the wind only to have it blow back towards his goal, who then handles the ball to keep it from entering the goal, has not committed an IFK offense against an opponent moving towards the player's goal.
The infraction is an IFK offense, so it cannot be a PK. It is an IFK. It isn't a DOGSO-H, because this cannot be committed by a goalkeeper in his own PA. Any form of handling is covered by this law, even if the handling is done in conjunction with other unsporting conduct, although FIFA has not done a good job of making this clear. It isn't a DOGSO-F, because the offense does not occur against "an opponent moving towards the player’s goal". However, according to USSF, denying a goal by hanging from the crossbar can be a DOGSO-F. But it is unlikely that FIFA agrees. Even if FIFA does agree, then it is not a DOGSO-F under the umbrella that all handling violations fall under DOGSO-H. In my opinion, any illegal act that deliberately denies an obvious goal scoring should be a send-off. But that isn't what we currently have.
Here's the English version of the play, with the commentator stating the AR was indicating red. [quickkicks]p=502036&s=5025611&i=550415[/quickkicks]
Vetshak - Please reread what I wrote. To your first point, I said DOGSO-F, not DOGSO-H. As for your second point, under both o5iiawah's scenario and the variant I proposed there is an opponent barreling in on the goal. Please don't resort to self-immolation (at least not on my account).
Ah, somehow overlooked that. I'll put the lighter away now. Actually, my intent to light myself on fire was directed more at the NE-Chivas clip. Actually, that's a pretty good loophole in the wording of the LOTG. PVancouver, if you note, I quoted right out of the Laws, and it doesn't say that infraction has to occur "against" an opponent. I think from a practical standpoint, it's implied. The clip I posted several days ago of the backpass from the MLS game last year, somebody joked it should have been a DOGSO (the keeper jumped and pushed the ball away, otherwise it would have gone into the goal). I think the problem with a DOGSO on a backpass is that the GSO is not created by the attacking team... even if an attacker is bearing down on the GK. I fully realize this is probably a spirit of the laws interpretation, but it would seem inappropriate to give a red in such a circumstance.
Which is why I said you better be a pretty good at sales if you are going to try it. Still, I think we should keep in mind that the LOTG authors specifically chose to go with "offense punishable by a free kick" rather than "against an opponent" in order to leave open the possibility that DOGSO-F could apply to an IFK infraction. PV's "hanging on the crossbar" scenario is one such case (and also an easier sales job if you ask me). I'm sure that we could come up with others if we tried.
Except that the LOTG say: "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick" It is more than just a possibility that DOGSO-F could apply to an IFK infraction: "by an offence punishable by a free kick" "the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick" The issue in the hanging from the crossbar case is this statement in the 2006 LOTG Q&A: "A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take? The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *." Is the substitute not sent off because the kick itself was not an IFK offense, despite the obvious unsporting behavior and despite the fact that play is restarted with an IFK? Or was it because the unsporting behavior denied a goal, and not "an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal". It must be the latter, because had the substitute used his hand to stop the ball, he is to be sent off. Yet the direct free kick offense of handling was NOT committed by this substitute. His infraction is unsporting behavior, not much different from the substitute who came onto the field to kick the ball to deny a goal. But since FIFA considers all forms of handling to be covered by the DOGSO-H rule, not just the direct free kick offense of "handles the ball deliberately", the substitute is sent-off if he handles, but not kicks, the ball. Similarly, the player who hangs from the crossbar should not be sent-off for chesting the ball away (although one referee site declared that there is no DOGSO in this situation anyway, since the defender could have headed the ball away legally, which is certainly a valid consideration IMO). This distinction in the laws, between DOGSO-H and DOGSO-F infractions, while can certainly be defended, in fact seems required, by a literal interpretation of the laws, makes no sense in terms of the spirit of the game. In my opinion, there is no need for a separate DOGSO-H and DOGSO-F law. The "to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal" language should be dropped. It should be only kept as a general rule to help determine if an obvious goal scoring opportunity has materialized. But it should NOT be a hard and fast rule than cannot be ignored in cases where an obvious goal scoring opportunity materializes but for the lack of an opponent moving toward the player's goal. The law should read simply: • denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick As long as it was made clear that a goalkeeper should be sent off for handling in his own penalty area only if the goal or goal scoring opportunity could not have been prevented by the goalkeeper in a legal manner, there should not be any major issue with this law. In the meantime I will have to grudgingly not send off players who commit acts of unsporting behavior other than handling to deny goals or players who deny obvious goal scoring opportunities by fouling an opponent who isn't moving toward his opponent's goal. I keep forgetting that the "moving towards the player’s goal" text is in the actual law.
Interesting that this came up, since it was again brought up in a recent (Sept 14, 2009) askasoccerreferee.com. Over the past couple of years, there have been a few versions of this: Question: March 17, 2007: ...Attacker takes a shot from the top of the 18. A defender ( we are not sure if it was the goalie or one of the defenders ) realizing that the ball is about to enter the goal, jumps up and grabs the top of the goal cross and brings it down. They were using one of those cheap goals. Ball obviously did not enter the goal and whistle was blown after the ball crossed the goal line... Answer: The original offense is unsporting behavior, for which the player must be cautioned. The player’s misconduct is punished by an indirect free kick. Because the misconduct, punishable by an indirect free kick, denied the opponent a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity, the player must also be sent off for that reason. This holds true for most scenarios. However, there is at least one possible scenario in which it would make a difference if it was a field player or the goalkeeper: That would involve the ball contacting the crossbar instead of sailing into the goal (i. e., the crossbar was pulled down just enough to cause the ball to hit it, as opposed to being pulled down enough to cause the ball to sail over it). If the ball made contact with the crossbar AND the offending player was NOT the goalkeeper, then the crossbar became an extension of the player’s hand (just as would be the case if the player threw an object at and struck the ball), so the restart would be a penalty kick in addition to the send-off... Feb 11, 2008 Answer: If, in the opinion of the referee, the player used the crossbar to make it easier for him to play the ball, he has committed unsporting behavior and must be cautioned and shown the yellow card. The restart would be an indirect free kick to the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred (keeping in mind the requirements of Law 8). If, in the opinion of the referee, the player was hanging from the goalpost simply to avoid injury to himself or to other players, there was no infringement of the Law. September 14, 2009 Question: I was involved in an interesting conversation last weekend at a youth tournament. Here is the scenario: The ball is passed/shot towards the goal. The ball appears to be going over the cross bar. The goal is a not of the strong variety. As the ball is approaching, the goalkeeper jumps and grabs the crossbar (causing the bar to dip) as the ball goes into touch. If the goalkeeper had not held onto the crossbar the ball would have made contact and might have stayed in play. There are now two questions: #1 Should the goalkeeper be given a yellow card for Unsporting Behavior for bringing the game in disrepute for hanging on the crossbar? #2 What should the restart be? *goal kick since the attacking team played the ball out of bounds *drop ball because of the goalkeepers action for hanging on the crossbar Thank you for taking the time to read my question... USSF answer (September 14, 2009): 1. Caution to the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior. 2. Restart with an indirect free kick for the opposing team on the goal area line at the point nearest to where the goalkeeper committed the unsporting behavior. If the referee needs to do more to promote his/her control of the game, the goalkeeper could also be dismissed for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick — in this case the indirect free kick for the misconduct.
I think I already made it clear that in the two scenarios (05iiawah's and my variant) we are discussing there is an opponent moving toward the goal. I am gobsmacked. This discussion has nothing to do with the "hanging on the crossbar" scenario you referenced earlier in this thread. This particular area of guidance has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads on this and other referee forums. I hope that we don't go down that rathole again on this thread. Please provide a source to support your statement that "FIFA considers all forms of handling to be covered by the DOGSO-H rule, not just the direct free kick offense of 'handles the ball deliberately'. " I don't know how to begin to comment on your statement that the two classes of DOGSO be merged together. If it is such an effort to uphold Law 5 and apply the LOTG as written, perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you want to continue to referee. For me, I just hope that when I am presented with a DOGSO situation, that I am able to recognize it as such and administer the discipline in such a way that the players accept the decision.
The reason I have been given for this documentation (and I am paraphrasing and neither defending for opposing) is that a substitute entering the field and interfering with play is "outside interference." Therefore, the correct restart for this is an IFK at the spot the ball was at when the outside interference was realized. Now, if the substitute handles the ball instead of kicks it, this becomes a DOGSO-H, a send-off, but still an IFK. Why? As I have been told, "Because FIFA says so." The substitute cannot be guilty of handling (DFK, PK) because DFK offenses can only be committed by players. But somehow, the handling by a substitute to deny a goal can fall under the send-off classification. Take it or leave it, that's the explanation.
MrRC not long ago astutely pointed out to me that the 2006 Q&A covered a variety of DOGSO offenses concerning Law 12: 4. An attacker goes past the goalkeeper and kicks the ball towards the open goal. A defender throws a boot or similar object, which strikes the ball and prevents it entering the goal. What action does the referee take? The boot or similar object is considered as an extension of the player’s arm. Play would be stopped, a penalty kick would be awarded and the offending player would be sent off for preventing a goal by deliberately handling the ball. 5. An attacker goes past the goalkeeper and kicks the ball towards the open goal. A goalkeeper then throws a boot or similar object, which strikes the ball and prevents it entering the goal. What action does the referee take? The goalkeeper is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted by an indirect free kick to be taken from the place where the ball was when it was struck by the boot or similar object*. 6. A player, other than the goalkeeper, standing in his own penalty area holding a shinguard, hits the ball with his shinguard to prevent it entering the goal. What action does the referee take? The referee awards a penalty kick and the player is sent off for preventing a goal. The shinguard is regarded as an extension of the player’s hand. 7. What happens if, in a similar situation, the player in question is the goalkeeper? The referee stops play, cautions the goalkeeper for unsporting behaviour and play is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team*. Two forms of unsporting behavior are given. In both cases the unsporting behavior is committed by handling the ball. In neither case is the goalkeeper guilty of a direct free kick handling offense. In both cases the goalkeeper is only guilty of unsporting behavior. In neither case is the goalkeeper sent off for the unsporting behavior, but only because the unsporting behavior was committed by "handling" the ball in his own penalty area. Ergo, FIFA indicates by this Q&A that DOGSO-H is to be applied, and not DOGSO-F. In the case of a substitute who enters the field and handles the ball to DOGSO, this too, is not a direct free kick handling offense (Law 3, Q 13.1). No penalty kick can be awarded. But the player is sent-off, not because he committed the DFK offense of "handles the ball deliberately" but because he denied a goal or OGSO by committing a free kick offense (UB), and used his hand to do it. Law 3, Q 13 makes this clear by saying: A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take? The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *. Despite a clear IFK UB offense, he can't be sent off for DOGSO-F, presumably because he only denied a goal, not an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal. Do I have written evidence from FIFA that all forms of handling in the penalty area that deny an OGSO can only be charged with DOGSO-H and not DOGSO-F? No. Do you have any written evidence that any form of handling can be sanctioned with DOGSO-F?
I received an e-mail answer from Jim Allen on a question about sending a keeper off for DGF last fall. First, he suggested we referees are parsing too closely when we worried about the "against an opponent" vs. "offense punishable by a free kick." In answer to the question: Jim's answer was this, Seems to me this answer acknowledges the correctness of the send off, but gives the referee a little bit of a warning that he should do so only if the game "needed it."
Thanks for your clarification of "all forms of handling." He can't be sent off for DOGSO-F because only players can commit fouls and he is not a player. I think Nesto's post #74, in which Jim Allen addresses essentially the same scenario that I posed earlier in this thread meets the criteria you are looking for.