There were two cases in MLS games yesterday that seemed to me to be pretty clear cases of DOGSO where no red card was shown. First, in the Galaxy v. Metrostars game, Razov is played through on a breakaway. Just inside the penalty area, Ugo Ihemelu reaches an arm around Razov and pulls him down. He's the last defeinder, straight at goal, inside the 18 and Razov is within reach of the ball. Referee Abbey Okulaja awards the penalty kick, but not even a caution, let alone a red card for DOGSO. Then, in the RSL v. Chivas game, Martins (Chivas) was behind the entire defense with only the keeper to beat and Knowles (RSL) quite deliberately jerked him off his feet to prevent the shot from even being taken. In my mind, no question about any of the 4 D's. Referee Hilario Grajeda showed a Yellow and awarded the PK, but it should have been a sendoff. What is going on with this? Why at this level aren't they making these calls? The reason that this bothers me is that there are thousands of coaches, parents and youth players across the country that see these plays with no red card shown. Then when we toss little Johnny for the same play in High School or a youth tournament this summer / fall, we get villified for it. For making the proper call. What do you guys think about these two situations? Is it as clear a case of DOGSO to you as it seems to me?
Terrific post ... I'll be looking forward to the expert responses. A couple of remarks: -- Razov is close to the ball, but it is bouncing on the turf, so he may not have control of it ... not sure if that matters. -- In real time, I couldn't tell whether Martins was close enough to Taylor's throughball to play it. The replay left no doubt about that, however. If Grajeda managed to see that clearly, he should've shown red.
i didn't see the chivas-rsl play. i had the same thought at the time about the galaxy-metro play (and am a galaxy fan). with the guy on a breakaway going straight at the goal, it seems that the takedown from behind that results in a PK should be dogso by definition. i also agree that it makes it difficult for us to make such calls, as well as somewhat confusing. did the ref just forget, or see something that we didn't? or was he using a certain amount of discretion and saying that, given the foul in question, a pk was sufficient punishment? what am i supposed to do when it happens in a u## game with this as my model? and why shouldn't parents/fans/kids themselves be upset if i do you the requisite card and/or justifiably claim to be confused themselves about what is and what is not allowed?
We get fed this crap by our referee instructors all the time about how you 'call things differently' at the professional level. There are a number of rules that have been FIFA gospel for ages: No jewelry (not part of standard equipment) No impeding No dangerous play violent play encroachment unsportsmanlike conduct (namely all of the freekick shenanigans by the fouling team) tackles from behind (especially the professional scissors tackle) and nowadays, DOGSO seems to fall into dissuse unless a particularly blatant nature. The funny thing is, FIFA sets the international, world wide standard, for soccer do's and don'ts. Yet, it seems half the book (mentioned above) doesn't apply to the top level of play. It's frustrating. In my mind FIFA has put in place a wonderfully thought out set of rules designed to allow the referees to promote safety, encourage fair play, etc... but when put into practice by national and international organizations seems to get muddled. The rules are easy to understand (ignore the public's frustration with offside for a moment) and can easily be applied to all age groups level of play. You know, we could kill two birds with one stone: By following the letter of the law set by FIFA we could get the sport away from the no blood no foul mentality (keep in mind I'm a defender at heart and love nothing more than cleaning a prima donna forward's clock) and 1.allow more skilled play to flourish and lead to more goals (A primary complaint about soccer by the masses) 2.and get more people in seats to witness the resulting flurry of goals Why is this such a bad thing??? I'm as much as making the game for the 'players', but what's so wrong about enforcing our rules at the highest level? I for one want to see more skilled play and less 'rasslin on the field, not to mention see our top players get injured less so that they can be watched in action by their adoring fans instead of being seen on the bench in bandages. Either we wipe these 'useless' laws out of the book, or we ought to start following the 18 commandments handed down to us by FIFA. Otherwise, what use are they?
Perhaps those referees in particular simply did not have the courage to apply the laws correctly. Personally I know nothing about those two individuals, and I saw neither of the plays. However, it would not be the first (or second) time that an MLS referee failed to send off for DOGSO. To be honest, I've pretty much stopped caring about the officiating ability in the MLS. I can do nothing to change it, and the quality of play simply is not exciting enough for me to get behind any particular team to feel wronged about a bad call by the refere. It is what it is.
The reply about "control of the ball" does raise an interesting point. I'll present two scenarios, each equal except for one thing. The question is whether either, neither, or both situations qualify for DOGSO. 1) Attacker is about 15 yards out, is running straight toward goal, and has a step on the last defender. The defender commits an obvious professional foul that is recognized and called. The attacker would clearly get to the ball before any other player, including the GK. The ball is either still or rolling in a manner that SHOULD be easy to control. 2) Same situation as 1), but the ball is either bouncing fairly high or doing something else that makes it unclear whether the ball can be easily controlled (you can alter this situation to the level of games you officiate). I know that "distance to the ball" is one of the four Ds to judge DOGSO, but it says nothing about what the ball might be doing. Without any other advice or rulings, I would probably rule DOGSO in 1) assuming the player is close enough to the ball to make it clear he would get there first. I would not rule DOGSO in 2) and would probably award a caution for USB. Of course, both cases result in a PK.
Four Ds aside, the second case is not an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity, and therefor a RC is not appropriate.
"but the ball is either bouncing fairly high or doing something else that makes it unclear whether the ball can be easily controlled" I disagree. He's there and has a chance to play the ball. I think it should be DGSO. Or are we going to start comparing the talent of someone like Pele to a second string MLSer prior to deciding DGSO? The defender takes the opportunity for an attacker to score away. Doesn't have to be a great or easy opportunity. They've denied the opportunity for the attacker to even have a play on the ball.
Just saw the highlights of both plays. The Razov play was the textbook definition of DOGSO. I can't understand how Okulaja didn't even give a card, much less a red card. The Chivas situation was a little more disputable, but it was still a likely DOGSO. I think I would have called it DOGSO if I had a similar play in one of my games. At least the RSL defender received some sort of card. I have to think both officials had a lot of questions asked about both situations in their assessments.
I think we should. What is an obvious goal scoring opportunity for a professional may not be for a 16 year old. Just my opinion.
the operative term here is "opportunity". it doesn't matter if that opportunity is 8 times out of 10 a goal is scored in that situation at the pro level, or 1 time out of 100 for that rec league, u16 player. it is still an opportunity denied. if the law and 4d memo fit - apply them. i thought both mls call needed rc's. i also believe the mls refs are told not to throw out star players unless absolutely needed by sfv, vc issues.
Which is ridiculous... that is if you want to uphold the fairness of the game rather than have just a show.
I'm probably missing something. For clarification, I'm just a fan (sometime player and Uxx coach) that try to keep up with the LOTG, I don't have the advantage of getting formalized training or participating in clinics like most of you. The LOTG under Sending-Off Offences, states (added underline below): 4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area); 5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick; In both cases the word obvious is used. To me it seems straight forward, if an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity was denied by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick then RC. If it was just a GSO (but not Obvious) no RC. I think that in this context, "obvious" is subjective and does depend on the skill level of the players. I'll have a hard time explaining to anyone how a 1 in 100 opportunity is "obvious". Just to be fair, I also have a hard time justifying why a player committing a DOGSO offense doesn't get a RC just because he wasn't the last defender (when everyone around "knows" that if not for the foul, a goal would have been scored).
It seems to me that the other major sports have similar issues with rules being bent (or completely disregarded), and the rules seem to always bend in the direction of the players. For example, it is widely agreed (based on players - past and current - and commentators I've listened to) that "star" NBA players do not get called the same way when it's late in the game and the foul might result in a "foul out." It would seem that a foul in the first quarter is not always a foul in the fourth quarter. And then there's the MLB which has rules prohibiting the wearing of anything beyond a standard uniform. And yet, we see Barry Bonds, Jeff Bagwell, etc. wearing what is often described as "body armor." I don't necessarily have a problem with these inconsistencies in the other sports (probably because I don't care as much about them as I do soccer). But it can certainly make life more difficult for soccer referees, when players are watching professional/international matches and see the rules being called differently. There becomes an expectations gap.
When you have a scoring opportunity, it doesn't matter what the chances are about converting that opportunity. It is still an opportunity, is it not? In other words, you and I could disagree how GOOD an opportunity is to lead to a score - as in what are the odds of that individual in those circumstances of converting the opportunity into a goal. You might argue it's a 1 in 100 chance of converting the opportunity because of skill level, bouncing ball, conditions of the field, etc. I might argue it's a 1 in 10 chance in converting an opportunity or even a 9 in 10 chance of converting an opportunity. But we aren't arguing whether it's an opportunity. We are aguing what the chances of conversion are. We have implicitely agreed that it is an opportunity. So that makes it a GSO - Goal Scoring Opportunity. In order to factor in the last part of the statement - Obvious - USSF has done a very good job of spelling out what we should consider so that we can call it fairly universally. This is the 4 D's that you hear us talk about... 1) # of Defenders 2) Direction to goal 3) Distance to goal 4) Distance to ball These are described here - The 4 D's. Remember, it only needs to be an OPPORTUNITY to score, not a "nearly certain goal".
I agree that you can't read "obvious" out of the law. IMHO a 1/100 chance never meets the test of a OGSO. Where you draw the line percentagewise might vary though, depending on the circumstances. It doesn't have to be 50/100. My view is that the 4 Ds are the key factors to help you decide if a GSO is "obvious." They do not replace the law itself. If "everyone knows" that the goal would have been scored, then you have an OGSO. But if there is a defender in the way, I am having trouble seeing how everyone would know that the goal would be scored. I suspect that if you visualize a factual pattern where "everyone knows", then you also meet the 4 Ds test. The 4 Ds test is very helpful in that it gives some objective factors to look at, but even the 4 Ds still leave some subjective judgment for the official. And even if you have 4 Ds, there is still room for the attacker to fail.
The example I had in mind, is that the attacker has already faked out the last defender and the GK (both were on the ground closer to the goal) and was tripped by different defender as he was about to pass them. The foul itself was a trip as the defender was going for the ball, but missed.
Maybe its two different ways of getting to the same result, but if a defender is lying on the ground and unable to make a play, I wouldn't count that player as being in front of the attacker for purposes of the 4 Ds.
You guy's are all missing the major point..... "....in the opinion of the referee......" The magic words. As I said to a coach just the other day when I'm right, I'm right. And when I'm wrong, I'm right.
Hello Brit welcome to the board. Your are correct that for the game in question ITOTR is the correct answer. BUT the board is here so we can share opinions as to the reasons behind the decisions. Discussing the thought process helps people improve their critical thinking skills. Some people even have had preconceived notions changed by the discussions. ITOTR does work in that our opinions will not be reversed by a competion authority, BUT if we hide behind ITOTR and never question or discuss the situations, in which there is a question, we will not imporve as referees.
Sorry, but we only have a 1 in 4 chance of being right. a) I see it, but the players and fans don't see it - I'm wrong b) I don't see it, but the players and fans see it - I'm wrong c) I don't see it and the players and fans don't see it - I'm wrong d) I see it and the players and fans see it - I'm right
Fair point. But reading through the various posts there is a lot of 'what if's...." and you can twist youself inside and out trying to second guess 'what if the defender was here or what if the ball was bouncing'. We all know its split second decision that has to be made - foul, no foul, direct, indirect, etc... Going back to the original question, if it happened exactly as described then it would seem to me that the referee bottled the decision not to send off the offending player and lets face it, as fans we have all seen this before. I totally agree with the above comments on the it being an "obvious" GSO before a red card is produced and that can only ever be decided by the referee on the pitch.