Question Number: 31303

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/1/2017

RE: Rec Adult

Greg Watkins of Austin, TX United States asks...

Last week I had an upgrade 6 assessment between two premier adult men teams. In the second half, 'Green' Forward #14 received a great through ball and was breaking away to goal with 'Red' defender #5 trying to catch up. When the attacker got inside the penalty area (he was not right in the middle, but lined up just outside the left goal post), the defender yelled at the attacker 'AHHHH!' right when the attacker was going to shoot. The shot missed high, and there was no physical signs that the forward had been distracted by the yell. I immediately called it back, gave an IFK for the attacking team where the defender yelled, and a caution for Unsporting Behavior to 'Red' defender #5.

After the game, the assessor didn't challenge the decision, but was curious if I could have gotten away with a card, but restart with a goal kick. And yet another referee (a national candidate) then brought up that it should have been DOGSO.

What is your take on the situation? Misconduct vs. Sendoff and goal kick vs. IFK.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Greg
Interesting one and IMO there is a paper answer and a game answer hence the differing views.
I suspect that the observer was not so sure that the shout distracted the forward to the point of a miss and that it might just have been a poor effort on goal. You say that there was no physical evidence of distraction which confirmed that view. He went with your interpretation and you were 100% correct in law.
Now the national candidate is technically correct that an IDFK offence such as this is a sending off once the 4Ds are present. I believe that as the shot was made that in fact the goal scoring opportunity was not denied. The argument that as the game continued with play being brought back to caution that the upgrade to a red card is tenuous in such a situation. I personally have never seen this and I would be slow to dismiss. I would have little hesitation if the offence was more obvious and clear cut such as shouting STOP or LEAVE It with the attacker duly obliging. In that situation the opportunity has clearly been denied.
Now in games I hear plenty of shouting of names, instructions etc. Imagine if the loud shout had been to the goalkeeper of STAYYYYY. Could that be interpreted as verbal distraction particularly if it was in a different language? So for me I think that the best decision was made. Caution for USB and IDFK restart.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Greg,

Well done on the correct decision here. A card and a goal kick would be incorrect - as the offence occurred at the time of the shot, and the goal wasn't scored, there was no advantage. So, there was a serious offence occurring before the ball went out of play. It would then be incorrect to caution, thus acknowledging the offence, but restart with a goal kick.

As for the DOGSO query - I've had this argument plenty of times online. There are 2 schools of thought:

1) DOGSO possible. DOGSO can be for any IFK offence. As you're stopping play to issue a caution, that makes it an IFK offence, which means it can be DOGSO.

2) DOGSO not possible. This suggests that the above argument is circular - the only reason you're awarding an IFK is because you're stopping play for a caution. You can't then flip that to say that because it's an IFK, you can forget about the caution (which effectively comes first), and make it a RC instead.

I tend to think the second is more in line with the letter of the law, so I don't think DOGSO is possible for that reason. However, one could argue that's an overly literal reading of the law, and by the spirit of the law, this is just as heinous as a conventional foul.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Greg ,
the screaming into the ear to distract is certainly unsporting and cautionable be it Arggg or even the name of an individual or the calling out 'Keeper ' yet in many cases there will be uncertainty if it was just a communicative effort for the team or warn the others you were coming into the fray hard to challenge. The use of a scream with no visible communicative effort was obviously discernable for what it was, intended to disrupt the attacking player.
The fact it is an INDFK for the misconduct qualifies for an event that took away a scoring opportunity. DOGSO criteria if present. the ride on the red sleigh is appropriate, IF you are 100% convinced the attacker did cringe or respond to the scream as the reason the opportunity was bungled . You choose an INDFK and only a yellow card for the USB. As we often say Your Match, Your Decision, Your Reputation
Cheers