Question Number: 22733

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/18/2010

RE: Adult

Steve of Brisbane, Qld Australia asks...

An indirect free kick offence and DOGSO

Thanks for your help previously. This question is specifically about those lesser class of offences, punishable by an IDFK, and how they may also trigger a dismissal under DOGSO. Two examples both based on a defender kicking the ball back to his keeper, but an attacker runs off to intercept the ball.

A defender runs past the attacker, and gets in between him and the ball. The ball is out of his playing distance, and the defender is running across the attacker to deliberately hinder and impede his progress to the ball. In your opinion the ball was travelling towards the goal area, and the attacker could have reached the ball before the GK, if not for the defender's actions.

The second example, after the defender kicks the ball to his GK, the attacker alone is running after the ball which is heading towards the goal area. However the GK dives forward to stop the balls forward movement, and remains fully in his penalty area. In your opinion if the GK had not stretched out to put his hand onto the ball, the attacker would have been able to kick the ball first.

Under law 12, there are 7 send-off offences; I am specifically looking at the 5th in that list (the 2nd referring to DOGSO) for both examples. What is your decision, and why?
Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The first example could be a send off offense for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) by an offense punishable by a free kick to an opponent headed toward the goal. The factors for the referee will include the proximity of the attacker to the ball and to the goal; the direction the attacker is headed (toward or away from goal); and the number of defenders who may be able to play the ball.

The second example is not a send off. A keeper may not be sent off for touching the ball inside the keeper's own penalty area. DOGSO by free kick offense cannot be used to override the 'exception' for a keeper to touch the ball without a sendoff in DOGSO by handling.

Answer provided by Referee Tom Stagliano

Referee Steve

I agree 100% with Referee Wickham on the 2nd portion of the scenario (the goal keeper handling the ball in his own penalty area). There is Never a DOGSO for a goal keeper handling the ball within his own PA. However, there could be an IFK for a couple of instances, and the keeper handling a ball that has been intentionally kicked to the goal keeper by a team mate is one of them.

As for the first scenario, be careful. Distance is Very Important. As you described the situation, that occurs frequently in the season and results merely in an IFK, if the defender is not in playing distance of the ball But the goalie will be within playing distance of the ball by the time the attacker could reach the ball, because, typically, there is no OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

However, if the attacker will clearly (without the interference of the defender) be able to run onto the ball, control the ball and make a play with the ball before the goalie can get within playing distance of the ball, then that is both an IFK restart and a dismissal for DOGSO.

Distance is Extremely important in this scenario. The four Ds are essential to dismiss a player for a DOGSO but not sufficient. It still has to be, in the opinion of the referee, an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity. Part of whether there is an Obvious goal scoring opportunity, is the general skill level of the players. The referee must be aware of that in making this dismissal decision.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Once again, I must reiterate that a goalkeeper within his own penalty area can NEVER be sent off for DOGSO via handling. It's an exception written into Law 12, and has been there from the beginning.

I have a problem with DOGSO when the offense is impeding. Part of the definition of impeding is not being within playing distance of the ball; part of the guidance for DOGSO is proximity to be able to play the ball. I'm not saying the two couldn't both be met, but that it would be very rare.

Another indirect kick offense which could result in DOGSO would be playing in a dangerous manner. If an attacker is lining up for a header but a defender sticks his foot in the way causing the attacker to pull back, it could qualify as DOGSO.

Other situations involving only misconduct, for which the restart would be an IFK, also qualify as potential DOGSO situations. For example a defender verbally distracting an attacker by calling him off the ball, or a defender pulling himself up on the crossbar to give him enough height to head the ball away from goal.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Steve
Neither of the scenarios presented are in my opinion denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. As you know to meet the DOGSO critieria which I quote (The 4 Ds)
• the distance between the offence and the goal
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• the direction of the play
• the location and number of defenders
In scenario 1 the defender has possibly placed himself in a position to shield the ball and one can argue that the ball is no longer in the forward's possession. In fact the IDFK for impeding is rarely given now. I can't recall an IDFK in the PA in years for impeding. It is more likely that there is going to be contact and the referee has to decide if the ball was within playing distance of the defender. Custom and practise of the years has given the benefit of the distance doubt to the defender and it would be a very harsh FK and DOGSO if it were given.
In scenario 2 the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of misconduct by handling the ball inside the penalty area. It is simply a foul if the referee believes that the ball was deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by his team mate and the restart is an IDFK. It is not even a caution.