Question Number: 28033

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/25/2013

RE: Retired Class 1 Referee from Australia Adult

Bill Van Der Vlist of Humble, TX USA asks...

I am curious to know the official decision why the GK was sent off. Seemed a little harsh to me.

Link below:

http://www.mlssoccer.com/video/2013/10/31/red-gspurning-catches-ball-outside-box-then-lashes-out-edson-buddle?utm_source=Taboola&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Paid

Thank you.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I also believe the reason was for DOGSO. In order for that to be called the referee must decide that but for the handling the ball would have entered the goal. Usually you see this called against field players that handle the ball close to the goal. The keeper in this case was 20 yards from the goal and the ball was kicked from a distance. How fast the ball was traveling would make the difference for me. I'm on the fence. If the referee at the game decided the ball was traveling fast enough to make it to the goal then DOGSO is a correct call.

I doubt the red card was for the shove/push/strike which looks like a bit of play acting on the part of the player pushed.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Bill
I am unsure as to the official reason for the dismissal. Many comments on sites have been for a DOGSO but I have not read any MLS official comment on this. Only the referees sending off report would cite the reason for the dismissal.
For me the reason would be violent conduct. The goalkeeper clearly raises his hand to strike the Blue player in the face which is violent conduct. At the Pro level in the UK raising the hand to the head area is seen as an automatic red card.
I don't believe that the sending off could be for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO H) as it would clearly fail on one of the 4Ds '' the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball'
If the dismissal was for a DOGSO H then in my opinion that would be extremely harsh and unwarranted.
Here is an example of a dismissal for DOGSO H by a goalkeeper that is warranted
http://www.ussoccer.com/news/referee-programs/2009/04/2009-referee-week-in-review-week-4.aspx

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

From what I've read online, it was for 'Denying an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity'.

I disagree with my colleague, Ref McHugh; I think that the ball would have easily made it to the goal under its own steam without any other player being able to reach it, so in my view the red card was correct.

Even if that was not the case, the attacker was running onto the ball and outpacing the defenders. So if the ball was not going to make it across the line, then a player was going to get there first. The only player that would have is the striker.

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

See Question: 28035

See Question: 28065