Question Number: 17607

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/31/2007

RE: Rec Under 10

Mike of Chino Hills, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 16796

Reading thru past posts, I came across question 16796. I thought the question was interesting because I know that I have "grunted" a few times in my men's league while racing to challenge a ball. Especially when I'm trying to pick up speed -- much like a weight lifter going for an extra set, or a tennis player swinging hard at a ball. Though it did help me push myself harder, I will admit that it's probably not good etiquette in a team sport - so I stopped myself. However, I was confused by Chuck Fleischer's answer. I don't understand how unsporting behavior is a sending off offence -- even if it is DOGSO. I thought the send-off for DOGSO only applied to fouls and not cautionable misconduct like USB. Count me as one of the 98 who just don't know. Where is this stated in the laws? Did I miss something?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Mike,
You missed the fact that there is a difference in FAIR play or FOUL play where we act in a way that damages the game and against specified criteria. Some conduct requires a bat over the head instead of a friendly reminder uh uh do not do that.

It is a stretch to be sure in the *need* to do it but in law it can easily and successfully be pointed out that the misconduct of a USB action as a stoppage requiring an INDFk restart qualifies as a** free kick event.** You see DOGSO is criteria based misconduct where the referee considers the player and ball direction and closeness to goal, the number of opponents in tandem with the offence for which play was stopped
Cautionable Offences
FIFA QUOTE LAW 12
5. denies 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 END QUOTE

Note it does not say only a DFK offence but free kick offence includes the INDFk as well. Consider a technical foul like PIADM or impeding these fit as a technical offence and DOGSO criteria could very well be applied, A bouncing ball at head height I lean forward to head the ball when a foot flies into my face barely missing my nose I stop and rear back thus miss my header.

There are only ten penal fouls but there are different versions of offences. An offence is not only a penal foul but any unfair action where play must be stopped because a player did something unfair to an opponent while the ball was in play.
Note USB is a cautionable offence.
DOGSO is a send off offence.
note offence for both , misconduct for both to create the offence but DOGSO requires additional criteria that must exist when the offence occurred the ruination of a score or OBVIOUS opportunity to score.

If I run behind you and you are about to pot the easy goal so I scream as loud as I can into your ear ARRRRRGH! or yell " "You score I will get you!" thus intimidate or cause you to flinch and you stop or miss the opportunity. The act was certainly USB but the restart as an INDFK fits the qualification to see if the DOGSO criteria were present..
I have seen mostly in younger ages the bully player who in running down a weaker opponent will use his voice to create nasty innuendo or cutting remarks or simply intimidate a weaker opponent by yelling at him..
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Here's another example of a caution that could be "upgraded" to DOGSO. Suppose a defender hangs from the goal frame in order to head away a ball that otherwise would have gone into the net. It's unsporting behavior, and the restart would be an IFK. But because the goal was denied, it becomes a send-off.

The only IFK offenses that cannot become DOGSO are the two handling offenses by the keeper - handling a ball that has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate, or handling a ball that has been thrown in to him by a teammate. That's because Law 12 specifically exempts the goalkeeper inside his own penalty area from DOGSO via handling.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Under the sending off description of DOGSO it says "denies 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 (emphasis added)." Please note that misconduct is punished by the award of a free kick, separate and apart from the need for a direct free kick offense. Examples: USB or Dissent. This gets really complicated at times, and the Law is not looking for referees to go waving red cards willy-nilly, but it is looking for referees to punish behavior which unfairly denies a goal to an opponent. Keep that one thought in mind and it will help simplify the decisions on DOGSO (and don't forget the 4 D's).

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

As Ref Maloney points out, misconduct is punishable by a free kick and any misconduct that denies a goal or goal scoring opportunity is punishable by a sending off

Answer provided by Referee Debbie Hoelscher

Unfortunately many instructors, trying to help people understand the basics of DOGSO and DOGSO-Handling confused everybody with their short cuts. I often heard "DOGSO by foul" and DOGSO by handling" and was erroneously led to believe that a foul had to have been committed when considering a sending off. It is, in reality DOGSO by free kick. Period. The DOGSO by handling is creating and emphasis specifically about stopping a ball clearly headed for the back of the net by the deliberate use of a player's hands -- who would obviously NOT be the goal keeper. The erroneous phrase "DOGSO by foul" continues to be perpetuated. Hopefully, as people become educated, this phrase will disappear.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

My colleagues have beat this one to a pulp, so let me throw some more trivia on the waters.

A substitute on the field without permission, NOT a player a substitute, uses his hand[s] to deliberately stop a sure goal. What can the referee do on this one? Yup, it's a sending-off offence!!!?! And let there be no question of this statement. Sending-off offence number 4 states:

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)

The reader will note the lack of the word "Player" in the offence. SO a substitute may commit this offence AND be sent-off! The restart of play IS NOT direct free kick because that offence requires a player. The restart is indirect free kick. And it is not for the sending-off offence it is for entering without permission because that happened first.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

However, if the person on the field is deemed an "outside agent" ( for example a player that had been previously sent off and shown the red card) then no foul or misconduct can occur and the restart is a dropped ball at the spot the ball was when the outside agent denied the goal. Now we've beaten it even more!

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 17650