Question Number: 30154

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/29/2016

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Nsw Australia asks...

A question around DOGSO (and apologies for the lengthy question and details.

In the recent Australia A-League match between Melbourne Victory and Sydney FC, a red card was shown to a Sydney defender for what must be DOGSO (have not yet read any reports to confirm otherwise).
As seen in the attached highlights at http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/video/632522819920/Melbourne-Victory-v-Sydney-FC the Sydney defender gets himself in a real mess and tangles with the Victory forward starting with a pull on the attacker and finishing with the attacker on the turf a number of seconds later after all the tangles.
Once the dismissal was tended too, CR indicated the restart, which was a DFK located a number of paces outside the area.

That being the case, the CR evidently deemed there was no foul starting outside and finishing inside which would have had a Penalty restart. Nor an individual foul inside that allow warranted a penalty.

So we must assume he decided a foul occurred (probably the attempted pull by the defender) however, let play continue and brought the play back for the DFK when not advantage was realised when the attacked slipped over (clearly through his own fault and not the defenders as otherwise a penalty would surely have been awarded), and hence the DOGSO red card.

Being at the match with a number of other mates who are also referees, we all post match agreed on one thing - was he actually denied a goal scoring opportunity, as the CR had allowed play to continue and the whistle only blown when the attacker slipped over - again, clear his own fault if no penalty.

So if the CR has allowed play to continue (and in this particular incident where there were no other supporting players that the fouled forward may have had an opportunity to pass the ball off too) the CR must feel there was still an opportunity for this player to score - and if that is the case is it still possible to say that an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been denied if he only whistled when the attacked slipped over.

So our question is (not so much about this play in particular - more so just an overall question) when does it become a case of lost opportunity via either poor execution by the attacker/team or a phase that just fizzles out that, is not called back for DOGSO and red card.

About this particular play, it is interesting that the attacker did not in any way get animated about 'hey, I've been fouled' (and any follower of the A-League will tell you he is never shy in asking) - but that is just a nice side bar.

We were of the thinking was he really denied an opportunity if the play was only stopped when he slipped over. The defender managed to recover to be inside the attacker and so not really allowing the attacker to one-on-one with the advancing keeper. Yes there was the attempt to pull back the attacker, but that was as effective as the attempted back pass that started the defensive problem - very poorly executed with little real effect.

Also worth mentioning that in the highlights, the studs into shin seen early in the highlights, went unpunished ! We put that down to being early in the match and the often reluctance to card players early.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
Playing advantage on a goal scoring opportunity is always fraught with difficulty. In this incident the defender clearly uses his arm to tug back the attacker who in fairness to him stood up and continued to play. Very many players would gave gone to ground here and then it was a much easier call for the referee. I suspect the referee did not play advantage here as he just waited to see the outcome of the play and then went back to the foul.
Now certainly the foul ticked all of the 4Ds. For me the defender did not need to foul the opponent as it appeared that the foul did not make a material difference to the play. There is somewhat of crystal ball gazing as without the foul what would have happened. Without the foul would the player have been in a better position and we would have to say yes. How much better is debateable.
For me if the forward got away his shot the referee would still be entitled to come back to the foul yet as the opportunity was not denied he could then caution instead of dismissing the player. If the referee signalled advantage with play going on for a period then like all other advantages if it is realised then we dont come back. That is why it is not a good idea to do that on an OGSO but rather wait and see.
So for me. Correct decision by the referee. Somewhat harsh given the way incident played out. Lesson for the defender is that in those situations committing a foul will always ask the question of the referee. At this level it is more likely to be red.
I recall a number of years ago in a game where a GK committed a DOGSO foul just outside the penalty area. Ball was passed to a teammate attacker just as the foul happened and the attacker ran with the ball to around the 6 yards line and unbelievably kicked the ball wide with his weaker foot. I went with a goal kick as IMO the advantage had been fully realised and there was no DOGSO. Interestingly there was no complaint from the attacking team. Now perhaps I could have gone back to the foul, cautioned the GK for USB and restarted with a direct free kick.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
it was an old defender friend of mine who was adamant you should stick in a hard tackle right away referees shy away from issuing an early card. I recall I refereed a match where I issued a yellow card on the very 1st challenge and a red card on the second challenge within 5 minutes of the start . They were the only two cards in the match. lol I have also had a match or 2 similar to Holland Portugal 16 card frenzy where no amount of cards seem to amount to anything. All I can advise is be consistent but be aware if what is fair is not accepted!

Clear red card, perhaps a silent advantage played, no advantage was clearly realized, go back to spot of foul. As I often point out a send off is a huge advantage basically a goal settles it or we come back to foul He was never in the clear always challenged and in trying to avoid it he slipped.
It was straightforward good officiating in my opinion.
Cheers

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

See Question: 30165