Question Number: 22425

League Specific 11/2/2009

RE: Rec, Select, Competitive, NFHS High School

Joe Griego of Bishop, CA USA asks...

In last weekend's Liverpool / Fulham match, Jamie Carragher gets a straight red card for bringing down an attacker from behind.

However, I'm unclear as to why the straight red was shown - it's unclear whether the ref considered it DOGSO (I think that's unlikely, given the keeper was still in the goal - can it be 'obvious' if there's still another defender to beat?), or whether the tackle was considered to be taken with excessive force? What do you think?

Here's the video link:
http://vodpod.com/watch/2432958-carragher-red-card-fulham-liverpool

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,

Joe G.
Bishop, CA

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

In regards to the number of defenders, the rule of thumb is no more than 1 defender between the attacker and the goal (or able to reach the attacker or his shot path assuming he's about to shoot), plus the defender committing the foul.

Essentially, we take the foulling player out of the equation. When there's only one player - the remaining player, usually the keeper - between the attacker and the goal then the 'number of defenders' portion of DOGSO has been satisfied.

This can work both ways; if the keeper comes out and fouls an attacker running straight for goal with the ball at his feet, then even if another defender has dropped in to cover the goal.

Once you decide a foul has occurred in the situation in the video, you have no choice but to reach for the red card. It's actually an interesting decision with a few things to watch out for. Carragher obviously held his attacker back, and I think this was done a little more vigorously than the typical jostling (so even if he didn't trip the player with the slide I think a foul, thus a red card, still would have been appropriate). However, let's look at the slide - he did get the ball, but did he get it first? I don't think so, but I also don't think it matters; you can't slide through the back of your opponent's legs to get the ball, and I think he was already off balance from the holding. If you look closely though, you'll see that Carragher's thigh made contact with the attacker's leg before touching the ball - however, like I said, had the slide itself not made contact with the attacker, or made contact after the ball was kicked, I still think it would have been a foul. This is also a fantastic example of how a player can be considered to have an OGSO even without touching the ball - the attacker was never able to touch the ball, but the ball was coming in at an angle that was easy for him to control, meant he would definitely reach it before any other players and would be heading straight for goal when he did. Had the cross been more difficult, or been more of a 50-50 with the keeper, then it's possible that a red card may not have been appropriate.

I think that, more often than not, when a red card for DOGSO is shown the attacker still has the keeper to beat after the player doing the foulling.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Griego
Jamie Carragher was sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The referee Lee Mason rightly in my opinion decided that had the foul not been committed that Bobby Zamora the Fulham player would have had a good opportunity to score and therfore it was denied.

Law 12 provides that a defender whose violation of the Law prevents a goal or denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity must be sent off and shown the red card. The 'professional foul' which is taken in a cynical attempt to prevent opponents from scoring requires a quick, firm response by the referee. Such misconduct by the defender overshadows the severity of the foul itself.

In order for a player to be sent off for denying an 'obvious goal-scoring opportunity,' four elements must be present:

Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul ( In this case only the goalkeeper)
Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity( 20 yards from goal)
Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball(Player in possession )
Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed (Directly at goal).

So IMO Lee Mason was able to tick all of the 4D boxes. In addition, a dubious challenge by Carragher earlier in the half did not help his cause either. That could have been a penalty and a dismissal and no doubt was in the back of Mr Mason's mind. Coupled with that was a foul the previous week by Jamie Carragher on Michael Owen of Man Utd which was no doubt a discussion point at the Senior Group meeting on the Monday probably influenced the referee's opinion. In that case, the player was not dismissed but the DOGSO question was asked by many pundits and commentators. This dismissal, I understand, is being appealed and it will be interesting to see if the referee's opinion is supported or not.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

The tackle from behind was not likely the reason for the red card as it was not in my opnion excessve or grossly unsafe. It certainly was reckless and from my armchair view it looked like DOGSO criterion were certainly met. The 4 D's as mentioned by my colleague Ref McHugh! I too belive history played a part in this given Carragher's recent behaviour.
Cheers

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

See Question: 22444