Question Number: 28699

Law 18 - Common Sense 9/2/2014

RE: rec Under 10

pete of floral park, new york usa asks...

hi always enjoy reading your answers thumbs up.
during my sons u10 game the forward on my sons team had a one on one with the goalkeeper inside the penalty area the goalie fouled him thus dogso, the referee awarded a penalty which was obviously the correct decision but did not red card the goalie seeing that he was the last player between the forward and goal,nobody argued or said anything to the ref which i was okay with seeing that the kids are still learning the game the same with throw in's i would like to know do you think the refs should be more strict law wise or let it go considering their age thanks

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Pete,

Glad you're enjoying the site!

Good to hear that there were no complaints over this decision - great that the right example is being set.

DOGSO isn't about 'last man' - a number of things will be taken into consideration, and among those things are how many other defenders are between the attacker and the goal (or otherwise in a position to intercept should a shot be taken), the direction of the player, distance to goal, and whether the attacker has control (or is likely to control) the ball.

There are other things that can be considered. There are only about 2 things I could think of preventing a red card here, under the DOGSO law:

1)The attacker may have significantly angled away from goal at the time of the foul. Some referees take 'direction to goal' overly literally, some allow some leeway for attackers to angle around a keeper (which I believe is correct) - but if the touch is going too far to the side, a red card may be impossible

2)Sometimes the attacker's touch to get around the keeper puts the ball so far ahead of him that the may may go out before he can get it; if there's doubt, a red card shouldn't be given.

Aside from that, there's the other concern: the age. I firmly believe the referee can bend the laws, but not break them. So, if it's a fairly innocent scenario, the referee can certainly stretch the limits of what isn't a DOGSO to suit the match, but if it's a clear and blatant one that he can't possibly justify not giving a red card for, then it must be given in a match where full laws are played.

Where I referee in Australia, U/10 and up were always played under full laws. Therefore, had the situation arisen in an U/10 match where a clear, inarguable DOGSO occurred, I would have to send the player off. I was always afraid of this happening from a simply mistimed tackle - I count myself fortunate that it never happened.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Pete
Glad you like the site and thanks for your question.
Many small sided competitions use modified rules and that can include no offside, rolling substitutions, kicks in, all free kicks are indirect, no punts etc. The competition organiser decide on what laws it wishes to amend.
Now as Referee Wright points out denying a goal scoring opportunity is not just about last man but a number of factors. It is one factor but there are other considerations.
Now it is likely in small sided competition certain laws including the DOGSO sending off law is not applied. In the UK for instance it is a blue card and a two minute suspension. Young players don't grasp many concepts such as offside and certainly I have not seen cynical fouling of a DOGSO nature. I have seen plenty of clumsy challenges and accidents with poor motor skills.
At this level it is all about fun and enjoyment in a safe setting. No referee wants to end the ULittles day with a red card. In fact when I referee at this level I leave the cards in my kit bag. It about teaching the young players. If I need to deal with a young player it is through the coach and a substitution request the naughty bin. I have also found that the tuned in coach will act himself on misconduct by removing the player. I like working with those individuals as it helps everyone

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

There are four elements to denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, one of which is the number of defenders between the attacker and the goal. The attacker must be close to the ball, close to the goal, and moving in a direction toward the goal. The last element is sometimes missing in the situation you describe.

The usual answer, however, is that in U-littles, the local league can decide that nothing is 'obvious.' Some ask that the sent off player be walked to the coach without a shown card.

Finally in U10, the referees are sometimes brand new. They can forget, in the rush of a foul and penalty kick, to consider DOSGO.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Thumbs right back atcha with a smile Pete,

It is a most excellent question. look over question 28575 when you have time as well.

First, just lets address the assumption that DOGSO was a lock on this one on one. I grant you in your example the criteria could well have been met but DOGSO is not thusly granted just because it is the last player. I once had to remove a coach who thought that way! He was adamant the laws stated that if the last opponent fouls the striker it has to be a DOGSO and a send off! Oh how he wanted one, to which I eventually gave in, only he did not expect it could be him Surprise! lol

There are certain criteria whereby ITOOTR they must line up like ducks in a row to be granted the red card sleigh of shame. One of the most overlooked is the proximity of available defenders who are moving to intercept and the ball is pushed too far ahead or too wide permitting the time for defenders to intercept or even go out of play into touch.

The distance away from the goal and angles, whether play is directed towards or away from goal will also be considered. In this coaches' case his striker was paralleling the goal line and had kicked the ball around the keeper in the direction of the nearest corner flag out towards the outer edge of the penalty area. The keeper stuck out the arm caused him to stumble and go down, right on the outer edge of the goal area facing the touch line. Definitely a foul, definitely cautionable, automatically upgraded to PK but there was no DOGSO involved! The ball was not headed into the goal, there were 3 defenders streaking back, two who clearly had a chance of intercepting the ball even before the striker fell. Like I said, your case might be more straight forward but wanted to dispel the myth of 1 plus 1 is 2 on dogso when sometimes it is 11 and no dogso lol One last consideration is if advantage was applied and a goal resulted, again the red card sleigh ride is possibly avoided

Many youth leagues have directives prohibiting the use of cards at younger ages . There are blue cards, soft reds and sinbin yellows in a variety of formats all designed to ease the heavy handed red walk of shame from being necessary. I tend to think once we are 11 aside competitive football the time to prepare young players is at hand! Recreational inter school recess soccer such things are easily overlooked but when you decide to COMPETE in a competitive 11 aside soccer environment all the laws apply. There can be accommodation in the way a send off for youth is handled as calling in the coach to help the player (who likely could break down and cry) deal with being sent off for DOGSO. Even a very by the book referee can still have a grain of compassion when handing out the dismissal card at the tender ages. While we are all for allowing the conditions for kids to succeed which is why mini soccer is so important, it is NOT a fundamental flaw in humanity to discipline a child for a SPECIFIC act that has SPECIFIC consequences. It is not JUST the showing of a card that makes the impression, it is recognition that if that happens, this occurs. Players are shown cards, receive cautions and send offs their entire careers so the lesson is not one of understanding but of accepting consequence.

My colleagues do very well in pointing out the shared responsibility the coaches have in managing unpleasant conditions. There are always situational conditions which can weigh in on the necessity of showing cards and having to sit out matches . Canada is a huge nation, cities and towns are miles apart and a team can literally spend hours travelling just to get to play as opposed to say, inter city, where a recreational league has thousands to draw from and a 15 minute ride to the field. Often the teams will meet in one place as others travel then play 2 possibly 3 games before heading back. These kids are anywhere from 9 to 18 years old. I have advised coaches, their players are looking a bit sick ,yellowish in fact and perhaps a substitute might be a good idea. Notice the referee can not demand the coaches substitute but the coaches that try to work with you understand what the situation is. No one wants a kid who gave up his weekend to ride the pine if we can find a way not to!

Yet as my good colleague Ref Wright points out the eleven aside competitive matches where outcomes and results matter, the laws can be stretched to accommodate certain situations however scoring a goal is a big deal and FIFA has determined that unfairly preventing it, is also a big deal.
Is a dogso denial by a 9 or 10 or 11 or 14 or 18 year old a cheating act ?
Is not the 9 or 10 or 11 or 14 0r 18 year old shooter denied the opportunity to celebrate?
What if the young shooter had NEVER scored before?
Mom and Dad watching robbed of that special event?
The team denied an opportunity to advance in a tournament for the first time out of a group?
Or a league standing, missing the playoffs or chance to continue to state provincial or national opportunities by this one loss?

When we look at referee conduct and the reasoning for a judgment or a decision on the pitch it is amazing to me how after all this time we still find topics to discuss. I was struck by a recent tournament controversy at a provincial championship regional match where the winners advance to a central provincial playoff and then on to nationals.
Although there were both sexes and 6 age groups u-12 to u-18, the age group of concern was the u-12 the youngest ages but still a full value 11 aside match with a lot at stake.
In the early morning boys u-12 game the referee called for a PK, the keeper had grabbed the ankle of the attacker and pulled him down, dead centre of goal. A CLEAR DOGSO by a free kick foul! The referee motioned for the coach to come into the field to meet with the keeper and himself. The referee explained in a quiet but compassionate voice that he was sending off the keeper for DOGSO point 5 of the send off offences saying, 'I am sorry but I have no choice!' The referee then raised the red card and asked the coach to escort the player off in a tearful display. There were comments both pro and con for the action taken by the referee from the spectators but as a referee I felt the decision was 100% correct and silently applauded his courage and manner in which the send off was handled. The resulting PK was scored and the team reduced to ten lost the match.

Nice story but the salient point came in the afternoon u-12 girls match, 28 minutes in, a lovely curling ball beats the keeper and is headed into the goal when the only defender in the vicinity reaches out and palms the ball down CLEARLY preventing the ball from entering the goal by the deliberate use of her hands. It was a as CLEAR a denial as one could possibly witness. This referee awards a PK but does not send her off, he does not caution. The resulting PK misses and in a well timed bit of irony that player who should have been sent off for POINT 4 of the send off DOGSOH scores the winning goal later in the match.

A disgruntled law aware parent of course asks the question at the half as the referee was leaving the field, why was she not sent off, she denied the goal with her hands? The referee replied it is just a u-12 game get over it! The parent suggested to the coach to protest saying she needed to be sent off. The referee coordinator got wind of this incident and asked the referee what was going on? The referee explained in his judgment the denial did occur but given the age of the player he did not think it necessary to send her off! To his credit the coach did NOT protest but was curious as to why if the referee admitted it was a goal denied could he chose not to send her off given the referee in the earlier match said he had no choice?
Is that not a very interesting point!

Here the referee identified the foul with a PK outcome but choose not to act on the misconduct that accompanied that particular foul. If the young girl had struck another opponent with her fist we certainly could enforce the send off for VC so why do the two DOGSO points #4 and #5 seem to make us more sympathetic to the younger players in that we do not want them to be sent off EVEN though by virtue of the ACT and the consequences for that act are CLEARLY spelled out they should?
Is this simply a big persons offence? If a referee chooses to excuse a player aged 9-14 for committing an infringement that should be punished by an immediate sending-off simply because he or she is so young, when will such players ever learn right from wrong and how to play soccer properly, not to mention to exist in society?
What if the failed goal scorer said that is crap and spit or struck at the player who had just committed DOGSOH?
If you do not apply one send off criteria surely you can not apply another?

It seems to me that particularly with DOGSO that there appears to be this concept the child really does not need to be sent off. If that is so strong in the associations' mental outlook then the league could institute policy where some restarts or laws are NOT to be followed! They best have them LISTED categorically and publicly displayed so a referee is NOT confused in his integrity or duty to the game and the players and his own code of conduct when accepting a match.


Sometimes even doing the right thing is the wrong choice!

Cheers