Question Number: 19792

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/20/2008

RE: Competitive Adult

Nicholas Broderick of St. John's, Newfoundland Canada asks...

This is a question about sanctions for DOGSO, USB and when they can and should be rescinded. Imagine this hypothetical situation:

An attacker has possession with the ball moving towards his opponent's goal just outside the penalty arc with one defender giving chase behind him and the goalkeeper between the goalposts (a textbook goal-scoring opportunity.) The defender barely catches up to the attacker and puts a foot out to tackle the ball from the side, but misses the ball by a fraction of an inch and is left out for the attacker to run into and trip over outside the penalty area. He does, ending his goal-scoring opportunity, so the defender has committed DOGSO by committing a DFK offense. The referee quickly awards the DFK and shows the red card for DOSGO by a DFK offense (let's ignore the poor mechanics of not giving eye contact to the near AR). The referee then gives eye contact to both ARs, but sees the flag of the farthest AR is up. After conferring with him, he learns that a teammate of the attacker, who was off the field of play fixing his equipment, took it upon himself to decide when it was appropriate to rejoin the play (i.e. entering the FOP w/o permission). He did this prior to the tripping offense committed by the defender.

Of course, we caution the attacker's teammate and change the restart to an IFK for the defense from where the ball was located when play was stopped. But what do we do with the defender? Does the fact that the attacker's teammate committed an offense prior to the trip compel us to admit that no goal-scoring opportunity existed (Law 10) and that the defender should not be dismissed? If so (and assuming the trip was not of a reckless nature nor committed with excessive force nor part of a pattern of persistent infringement) do we instead caution the defender for USB (committing an offense that interferes with a promising attack) or do we apply the same logic that negates the DOGSO sanction and do not sanction at all?

(I remember something similar occurring in Euro 2008, where information given by an AR convinced the referee to rescind a caution. I hope you will all remember what I am referring to. Of course, we can only speculate as to whether the caution was for a reckless tackle or breaking up a promising attack, and whether the ball being out of play at the time of the incident had any bearing on the decision.)

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

See why proper mechanics are so important? Although even if the ref had looked at the AR before showing the card, what would he have perceived? An AR with a flag up, confirming the foul that he just called.

You are correct that if the referee accepts that the illegal entry happened before the foul, we have to go back to that point. And then, since no goal-scoring opportunity existed, there is no DOGSO offense. It's similar to what would happen if the attacker had been offside and the foul happened immediately after the attacker received the ball. Although in that case, the AR's offside flag signal would have saved an alert ref from showing the card too early.

The defender should be told that he was fortunate to receive a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card because of his opponent's actions. Obviously your eye will be on him from now on!

Your description sounds like a simple careless foul. If the foul had been reckless or excessive deserving a card in its own right, the misconduct for that would stand. Wiping out a player just after play has stopped is still wiping him out.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

I have missed an offside flag and sent-off a goalkeeper for DOGSO. The way I handled it was by giving the free kick signal and showing indirect for offside then calling the goalkeeper back to the field. I explained the foul play was just careless and not warranting any discipline and drawn a line through the entry in my notebook. I told both captains what my decision was and restarted indirect free kick to the defence. It was accepted by all concerned, especially the goalkeeper!

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Gene Nagy

Nicholas, this is a case of what came first. In my eye, since the play has not been restarted the first foul should be dealt with and the DOGSO rescinded. Since it is a big deal to take the red out, I would call both captains and quickly explain why the restart is now an IFK for the defenders and not a DFK for the attackers.

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

See Question: 19914