Question Number: 29512

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/29/2015

RE: Competitive Professional

Nick of Campbell, California USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 29452

Thank you all for your responses to my original question. I'd just like to ask a follow-up based on that question to strengthen my understanding.

Mr. McHugh brought into question whether the scenario I previously painted represented a true goal-scoring opportunity. For the sake of this follow-up, let's assume it does - say we move the attacker just a yard outside the penalty area. As before, the dribbling player is unfairly tripped, regains his/her composure and faces two defenders instead of just the one; the player has lost the bona fide goal-scoring opportunity but is still presented with, as the Laws term it, a 'promising attack'. The referee decides to play the advantage.

If a goal results from this attacking opportunity, is the opponent who fouled the player still sent off? If this attacking opportunity does not immediately result in a goal but, later in the same phase of play (i.e., the ball does not go out of play) a goal is scored against the opponent's team, is the opponent sent off?

Ultimately, I am trying to understand how the Law concerning denial of a goal or goal-scoring opportunity applies outside the very simple cases when the goal-scoring opportunity is immediately and unequivocally restored or retained - the opponent may, at worst, be cautioned, serious foul play and violent conduct notwithstanding - and when play must be stopped to award a free kick or penalty kick - the opponent, of course, must be sent off. Something very similar to the contrived scenario I've given did happen to me a while back, except the opponent held the dribbling player by his shirt and used that leverage to regain position. The player was left with the ball and teammates in support, a very strong attacking opportunity. I played advantage - sadly a goal did not result - and sent-off the opponent at the next stoppage. I reasoned that the goal-scoring opportunity had been denied and replaced with an attacking opportunity. If a thief stole your car and replaced it with a bike, they would still be guilty of stealing your car!

The decision seemed correct at the time, but I realized afterwards that the Law is mute in regard to this situation. The Laws recommend stopping play when a sending-off offense is committed for the sake of match control, unless a goal is imminent. But stopping play in these situations seems to play into the hands of the offending player; he/she likely knows they will be sent-off regardless and will welcome the whistle if it helps them achieve their goal of stopping the opponent's attack.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Nick
Thank you for your follow up question.
Let us start with the easy answers. If a goal results from an advantage then nothing has been denied and the offending player CANNOT be sent off. He can still be cautioned for unsporting behaviour.
In the situation where advantage has been played and REALISED, which may or may not result in a goal, we do not go back to the original foul. In that situation there is also no foul awarded so there cannot be a sending off for denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity. We can still caution for unsporting behaviour at the next stoppage.
One of the fundamental requirements of the DOGSO law is that there must be a free kick or penalty kick awarded. Without that there is no possible sending off. It is why USSF advises that advantage should not be played on a penalty kick situation but rather a wait and see approach should be adopted. That means that if the goal is not scored the referee awards the penalty kick. The referee then evaluates if the conditions existed at the moment of the foul as to whether an obvious goal scoring opportunity existed.
In respect of your scenario where you played advantage with no goal scored and then sent off the defender for a DOGSO that should only have happened if you went back to the award of the original foul. To use your analogy if a thief stole your car and replaced it with a car of equal value, colour etc and you were not at a loss then while he would be still guilty of stealing the fact there is no loss is taken into account in deciding punishment.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

For the goal to be denied there must be NO GOAL, if we allow advantage and a goal results, lucky for the player who committed the foul before he COULD have been sent off, NOW he is no longer held accountable for DOGSO . You are correct, there are OTHER misconducts which he could be held accountable for.
If the advantage is played for a denial of a goal, in other wards you hold the opinion that ball was entering the goal under the crossbar and between the posts except for say the deliberate handling or a you held the player back by his jersey so he could not tap it in then in my opinion only a ...goal... will save the offender from being immediately sent off no matter what attacking opportunity presented itself. We are honour bound to award the free kick or PK and send off immediately rather then wait until a different stoppage to show cards or send off.
What is suspect is if you give credence to an opportunity that was foiled by the foul but the advantage was even a BETTER opportunity then I fail to see how you could send off for DOGSO if say he skied the ball over top the middle of goal from 2 feet with no one near on the advantage. I would not go back and send off for the DOGSO foul if the subsequent opportunity was BETTER .ie a newer shiny car that was at the finish line but the driver got drunk and crashed If it was worse, i.e. just a used motor bike that failed to take you into goal because you had to get out and push then the advantage was not truly realized, so go back to the foul and send off

I will say this in match where 2 fouls occurred and a goal resulted no one was sent off although there was every reason to do so.
A shot by Blue #9 from 25 yds. out, into the top corner, defender raises the hands and ball pops out for a second try. Advantage Blue #9 2nd shot is taken whole side of goal open, bang off the crossbar and back out to a different blue player who has a run at it and is tripped by a defender inside the PA Advantage PK better than DFK. Blue number 9 finally buries the ball in the back of the net with defenders littering the round. I still but only cautioned both defending players. Whether by the absolute letter of the law I could send off for DOGSO for the 1st handling it would be overkill.
Cheers