Question Number: 30777

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/18/2016

RE: Under 14

Filippo of Palermo, Italy asks...

This question is a follow up to question 30769

I know it was a pretty unlikely scenario (I was curious about DOGSO and offside infringements, yet I could not think of a more realistic situation), but I am grateful for your answers anyway!

Something is bugging me, though. You all said it is not a red card because the offending player did not deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the goal. I could understand not sending the player off (there could be some sort of exception to DOGSO for Law 11 offences after all), but... is the reason correct?

According to IFAB, there are several situations where a player or substitute must be sent off for DOGSO even when the offence is not committed against an opponent moving towards the opponents' goal (and it is not a handling offence), including when:
1) a substitute enters the field of play and denies a goal to the opposing team by kicking the ball away;
2) a defending player kicks an object against the ball and prevents it from entering their own goal.

This is apparently because the spirit of the revision of the Laws of the Game is that what was 'lost' is (as far as possible) restored, so in all of the above situations the offending player should be sent off. Hence, if there is no special exception to DOGSO for Law 11 infringements (because your only reason was that it did not fit the wording of this misconduct given in Law 12), shouldn't it mean that the offending player would be sent off in my scenario?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Filippo
You mention IFAB opining about the DOGSO law I am unsure of the exact source of same? Some of these sources can be second hand and not entirely accurate or current.
Law 11 is an unusual offence in that it is a technical infringement punished by an IDFK and it is not committed against an opponent. As it is a technical offence not committed against an opponent it cannot be a DOGSO even if was humanely possible. Remember that the offence is denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick. As you rightly point out there are technical offences against opponents that do merit a red card such as playing in a dangerous manner or the player kicking an object against the ball.
Please consider as well that we have to take into account what would be expected of a player in the spirit of the game. Could we really envisage a situation where a player who might be called offside stand idly by and watch the ball enter the goal and be dismissed for a DOGSO!. It was for this reason that the GK was exempted from misconduct on handling the ball inside the penalty area. He is doing what is expected of him.
Final point I have not seen a DOGSO dismissal for an IDFK offence although I suspect it has happened somewhere. While it is covered in law yet it is so rare that it is a decision that referees rarely if ever have to make.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

There are some things that come down through the years, that now seem to only be attributable to 'tradition'.

While both the situations you posit could be like that, they do fall into another category. They are cases where an act of misconduct, specifically unsporting behavior, is *upgraded* to DOGSO because of the consequences of the misconduct. I'm not sure if IFAB ever specifically stated it that way, but in the old Q&A that preceded I&G that now is superseded by the enhances Laws, there were some situations like these.