Question Number: 31060

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/28/2016

RE: Competitive Adult

Jack of Sydney, New South Wales Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31054

All of the responses to the preceding question seem to indicate that if advantage is played from a DOGSO offence, if a goal is scored, a caution for unsporting behaviour is discretionary. However, this passage is contained in 12.3 in the 2016/17 Laws:

'If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour.'

Reading that literally, it seems to indicate that a caution for unsporting behaviour MUST be issued when the ball next goes out of play, if the referee plays advantage from a DOGSO and this results in a goal.

This reads as if this is now (as of this year) a mandatory, rather than discretionary caution. Am I missing something here?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jack,
for deliberate handling that denies a goal, yes, for a charge where the ball itself is not truly being sought after, yes, same for a shirt pull as a tactical ploy if these are the culprit of DOGSO creations. I still find it difficult to award a caution for foul that else where is simply a legit try for the ball and at best slightly careless. Keepers were, in my not so humble opinion, were getting a bad rap when they honestly try to make a play, create a stumble and we were sending them off as if they had committed an axe murder. FIFA at least understood the unfair nature of this dilemma and reorganized the send off aspect given how PK DOGSO events are now cautionable as opposed to red card for DOGSO as the PK gives them a scoring opportunity if they do NOT score. Perhaps the IFAB law givers feel ANY DOGSO foul is a guarantee of a USB unsporting gesture but I do NOT accept that, if the goal is NOT denied, then judge the foul on its OWN merits. While it is likely there is an unsavory aspect for which we seek to punish the concept of why the DOGSO occurred given that it did not prevent a goal scored puts the aggrieved team in a happy frame of mind and allows us to determine the necessity of sending a further message.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jack
There has been confusion on this over the years. At one stage it was indicated as a must caution and then it got reversed to a discretionary caution. Now one has to make the assumption that it is a DOGSO in the first place with the one exception of deliberate handling which fails to clearly stop the ball entering the goal or the blatant shirt pull that again fails to stop the goal. Those may be cautioned in their own right for USB in the game so they should also be cautioned after a goal.
So for me playing an advantage or better still a *wait and see* that ends up as a goal may not be a DOGSO in the first place and the referee is left to opine whether the foul merited a caution in its own right. On the handling one I would have less sympathy with a player that tries to stop the ball entering the goal with his hand and fails.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

The emphasis on this section is not whether one may or must caution a player. Rather, it is focusing on when that caution, if decided upon, will be given. It must take place during the stoppage immediately following the application of advantage, or it may not be given at all.

It then says that if the referee was thinking about a DOGSO but applied advantage, there cannot be a send off if the goal was actually scored, because nothing was denied. This language carries over from a few years back when the interpretation (perhaps only from USSF) was that if the fouled player scored it was not DOGSO, but that if another player scored it was DOGSO. The current wording does away with that mess.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Jack,
The passage that you quote actually makes no sense, grammatically. It looks as if there is either a word (or words) missing. So that makes it difficult to figure out what the IFAB is actually trying to say here. Overall though, I agree with ref Voshol's interpretation of what it probably means, including the fact that it is more to do with when a caution or dismissal player should take place, rather than anything else.