Question Number: 30141

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/24/2016

RE: N/A Other

Peter Grove of Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire United Kingdom asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30140

This question is specifically addressed in the Laws of the Game.

Page 123 (2015/16 edition, pdf version) states quite unequivocally:

'If a player denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by playing in a dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player.'

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Peter ,

You are spot on as ever. Yes the way the LOTG are written makes that statement 100% true! Its in the additional guidance by way of an explanation of Law 12, as PIADM is not just studs at head height but any action whereby the safety of an opponent or player is compromised creasing a bailout by the opposition to avoid a collision or unsafe action that could result in a loss of an opportunity to score a goal. The fact PIADM is specifically mentioned as a candidate for DOGSO helps clarification but in this new rewrite I wonder if it will be kept? Seems redundant but then reality of applying the LOTG to a standard that everyone agrees with is difficult. My colleague and I have a different look at the John Terry incident in what is a reasonable attempt to play the ball can ALWAYS be dangerous if the timing and circumstances fail to adjust to a movement that was truly meant to play the ball but has unintended consequences? So though the LOTG state PIADM does qualify for DOGSO you will rarely see it actually implemented. In point of fact I have to wonder if anyone can recall seeing or experiencing it? Love to see a video showing a PIADM that has clear DOGSO criteria. Has to be a rare event?
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Oeter
Many thanks.
The real challenge for the referee is to determine if a goal scoring opportunity existed and if the players actions were playing in a dangerous manner both of which are subjective depending on the opinion of the referee.
As you know the DOGSO offence has been open to many interpretations with the Laws outlining what is called the 4Ds to try to advise referee in its application. Distance to the ball, Direction of play, Defender numbers and Distance from Goal are factors to be considered. All four have to be present as ascribed for the sending off to apply.
PIADM occurs when the the player is trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
As I said in the original answer the PIADM DOGSO is quite rare and while specifically allowed for in the laws it is rarely if ever called.
You may recall this incident between Chelsea and Arsenal.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8GEB-TYLMmQ
Penalty and a DOGSO?
Penalty and Serious Foul Play?
Penalty and Reckless?
Goal kick?
Say Red Arsenal Abou Diaby had missed Blue Chelsea John Terry with his raised boot yet kicked the ball or missed ball and player would a referee call a dismissal for a DOGSO and an IDFK restart had Terry pulled out of the header for fear of what actually transpired?
Referee Webb went with a goal kick and Blue Chelsea John Terry took no further part and was hospitalised. If Referee Webb went with a goal kick with the contact actually happening the chance of a DOGSO with no contact and an IDFK was never ever likely to be called.
FWIW I am of the opinion it should have been a penalty and certainly a caution for reckless play. I don't believe the player knew that Terry was going to play the ball in the manner he did. It could though easily have been a red card for serious foul play. In defence of Referee Webb was he of the view that John Terry lowered his head causing the incident. In real time within a split second that question could arise? Was his view obscured at the moment of contact by three players and was unsure of the exact nature, timing and height of the contact. Interestingly there seemed like little appeals for a penalty?
http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/06/24/penalty-philadelphia-earns-spot-kick-after-dylan-remicks-high-boot
Here the referee gets it correct.