Question Number: 22444

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/5/2009

RE: Rec, Select, Competitive, NFHS High School

Joe Griego of Bishop, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 22425

Thank you for your thoughtful response regarding the four elements of DOGSO. I had mistakenly believed that you counted the fouling player when calculating the 'number of Defenders' portion, and I now stand corrected.

However, the other factors raise an interesting question. As a youth referee, I have never actually had to make a DOGSO decision, since the kids for whom I referee don't really commit 'professional fouls.' But, I'm doing more and more NFHS (high school) games, and have seen some pretty cynical fouls as a spectator, so I think I may eventually witness it, and have to make a good decision based on the four 'D's.'

But let's say in a youth match (U12 or below), if the distance to the goal is 20 yards, there is no guarantee that the opportunity is 'obvious' enough to warrant DOGSO, even if it's 1 v 1 with the keeper, don't you think? What do you recommend for evaluating DOGSO at a younger level?

Also, since your response, I've seen a USSF video that showed an MLS player fouled to the side of the goal (had a sharp angle), and the keeper was very close, but because the professional keeper 'probably' would have stopped the shot, DOGSO was NOT recommended, even though the four D's seemed to be there (to my more inexperienced eyes, of course). It confused me a bit, so clarifying the position based on the level of play would be helpful, if the panel has time. I'd like to learn to get it right, when I see it.

Here's a link to the USSF video - it's toward the bottom of the page:
http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Referee-Programs/2009/09/2009-Referee-Week-in-Review-Week-25.aspx

As always, thanks for your contributions to the soccer-playing community.

Joe G.
Bishop, CA

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Griego
At U 12 or below I am very lenient as I don't believe that players have as yet developed the nuance of the 'professional foul' or the DOGSO.
The assessment of a DOGSO is very subjective and its in the opinion of the referee if an obvious goal scoring opportunity existed. Some are pretty straightforward but if I have any doubt I will give the benefit to the defender.
Personally if I was confronted with this situation in the video I would have dismissed the player as well. USSF have decided that it was not a DOGSO situation and this is one of the laws that is so difficult to maintain uniformity on.
In recent time the mood of the football family has been on denying a very obvious rather than obvious goal scoring opportunities. This IMO was an obvious opportunity to score, whether a goal resulted or not was a different matter.
In a PL game this week the exact same scenario happened and the referee gave a penalty and a yellow The commentators could not understand why it was not a DOGSO red. In addition I have seen two excellent goals scored from more actute positions that this in the European CL this week.
I believe that there has been a relaxing of the DOGSO principles and now only very obvious goal scoring opportunities result in a dismissal.
Remember as well that at our level our decisions are not subject to public scrutiny or action replays. It is impossible to recreate the actual circumstances presented in a game 5 seconds later so the referee makes a call on a DOGSO at a split second in time. I had a lengthy argument with a coach recently about why I did not send off a player who was fouled just outside the side of the PA as the player who fouled was the last defender. That was despite the fact that two defenders were getting back as well inside the PA!!

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

The key word is 'obvious' and clearly, it must be obvious to the referee, as she is the fact finder. There is a huge amount of judgment to this decision, which is why referees, even those at the highest levels, are forever being second-guessed regarding these decisions.

The four D's relating to age and skill need to work on a sliding scale to keep the game fair and within the bounds expected by FIFA and USSF. The lower the skill level and/or the age, the closer to the goal will be the distance requirement, and the higher the skill level, the further away an attacking threat can be 'obvious'.

The direction requirement will also need adjusting, as any kind of a sharp angle will not be an obvious goal scoring opportunity for recreational and medium skill level players of any age - if it happens accidentally, it wasn't obvious. The higher the skill level, the greater the chance a goal may be scored from ridiculous angles, although common sense and observation of the individual abilities of the players will temper even this judgment.

The number of defenders can't slide much at all, but keep in mind the number of defenders always means another defender who can get to the ball or the play. The younger and/or less skilled the players, the closer the second defender will need to be for there to be an honest fulfillment of this 'D'.

And the last D - distance to the ball also slides depending on skill level and age. The highest levels can still control and play balls that are a yard or more in front of them (the couple of strides at speed) whereas in lower skilled games, if the ball isn't right on their foot or within a stride, the referee must judge whether the player would actually be able to control it to have an 'obvious' goal scoring opportunity.

As an assessor, it is very important to explore the various ranges when asking referees about the decisions they made - pro or con. What did you see? Where was the closest defender? Probe and gently push to see if they have an understanding, and to clarify their thinking.

Most referees will just 'feel' it, if a DOGSO has happened - especially when they've thought through the process beforehand, been awake and aware of the game they are refereeing today between these two teams and are close enough to judge the 4 elements fairly - and then they just need to trust their judgment.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

I sent off one U12 player in nearly 300 U11/U12 games in 12 years. The attacker was one-on-one with the goalkeeper, when he was brought down from behind. The foul itself was worthy of a caution. If I had decided that it wasn't 'obvious' enough to warrant DOGSO, that a caution could have been sufficient, I would have been ignoring the seriousness of the challenge. I then immediately appealed to the local Board to waive any suspension, but they couldn't act in time before his next game.

I agree that most things the younger kids are doing aren't that obvious. This one case was the exception for me.

In the Week in Review analysis, USSF seems to be using the FIFA description "the location and number of defenders" to make the decision. This differs slightly from the USSF 4-D's description, "Number of Defenders?not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul." I wonder if we'll be seeing a slight revision to the USSF position next year.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

If I have a criticism of USSF policy is they often reiterate ITOOTR (in the opinion of the referee) , then try much too hard to detail every little nuance as to what opinion they can have! The DOGSO principle is IF in the OPINION of the referee the foul stopped the attacker from an obvious opportunity to score. The fours Ds are not supposed to be a rigid inflexible guideline simple an awareness of the possibilities.

I hold the opinion if we are 11 aside football then all the laws apply . The issue for me is DOGSO is more of a CONSEQUENCE than learning a behavioural change! More of a punishment for the act! DOGSO at u-12 or premier adult, there is a player denied the OBVIOUS opportunity to score. The obvious or deliberate part is where we mediate on the age or skill level the participants to compensate for the opportunity and rationalize the need to send off!

While a decent instructor can teach you what to call it is much harder to teach what not to call! It might be the deciding element of a good versus a great referee to know the bendability of laws but not exclude them arbitrarily. From my vantage point it could seem the 'O' in obvious, just got a bit smaller!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I agree with much of what my fellow panelists have to say. I also have worked hundreds of U 12 and U10 games and have made very few DOGSO decisions. The first was a U10 player, not the keeper, who reached down with his hands and grabbed a ball on the goal line preventing the ball from scoring. Absolutely obvious and hated to send the youngster off, but what he did warranted it. I took him over to his coach and explained to both of them what he had done and pulled my red card out of my pocket and briefly showed it. U12 is a different game and much depends of whether the players are rec or select. A select player heading straight for the goal 10 yards out and gets tripped from behind has likely been prevented from an obvious goal scoring opportunity and I would not hesitate to send him off. Rec players get the benefit of the doubt more often than not but there can be incidents that warrant a DOGSO. A Rec attacker will have to be very close to the goal with ball under control one on one with the keeper and be obviously fouled before I will consider a send off and I think I've only sent off 1 rec player for DOGSO.

I differ some with my colleagues concerning the video you cite and the USSF interpretation. I'm not sure there even was a foul but if there was I agree with USSF that this was not a DOGSO. The attacking player had poor control of the ball and I'd be shocked if he had scored if not fouled. Although players at this level certainly can score from this angle, I think given the lack of ball control, the acute angle, and the keeper being right there in front of the attacker, I don't find this obvious. As you see, this is up to the referee on the field has he has the best feel for what happens and how to react to it.