Question Number: 32529

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/20/2018

RE: Under 18

Jorge A Diaz of SPRINGFIELD, VA United States asks...

In Colombia vs Japan, the defender was shown the red card after touching the ball with his hands and a PK was honored. My understanding is that in the new law a ref can give the pk and a YC but not a pk and red card?

Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Jorge,

There was no touching it was a deliberate handling designed to prevent the ball from entering the goal. Inside the PA or outside, such a tactic is ALWAYS red card send off if the ball was headed into the goal.

IF the referee held the opinion the ball was NOT headed into the goal he could then only choose to caution & show a yellow card.

So you were simply misinformed as not ALL DOGSO attempts are forgiven as easily!

The caution and yellow card is a new policy based solely on the challenge in the PA being a legitimate attempt to win the ball by the defender . SO a careless trip, tackle, kick , charge, in trying to win the ball is downgraded. Whereas a strike , jump. push, shirt grab, deliberate handling, spits, impedes an opponent with contact are often done with no attempt to win the ball fairly thus are DOGSO red card actions.

Tactical fouls like deliberate handling or pulling the jersey are exempt because the defender is NOT playing to win the ball in a fair manner.

A careless slide tackle to poke the ball away but trips the opponent is still a foul & PK and although the foul could have stopped the attempt at goal the fact it was at least a reasonable challenge ,NOT a deliberate cheating maneuver or an excessive attempt to injure it was downgraded to just a caution not DOGSO & the PK is a reasonable opportunity to score.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jorge
Good question and we are happy to explain
For many years the triple punishment of a red card, a penalty kick and a one game suspension for denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity was seen by many in the game as harsh particularly on a genuine attempt to play the ball inside the penalty area particularly when a penalty kick gave back the goal scoring opportunity.
Pressure mounted on IFAB to amend Law 12 which it did after much debate and consultation.
Now there was also an argument put forward that certain offences that denied a goal scoring opportunity should be treated differently namely deliberate handling, pulling, pushing and instances where there is no opportunity to play the ball. Those were seen as cynical , non genuine attempts to play the ball.
When the law was amended it in effect made provision for a caution / yellow card for fouls that resulted in a penalty kick where a genuine attempt to play the ball was made and for a dismissal / red card for offences that there were cynical in nature as already mention. In addition all offences outside the penalty area continues to be evaluated for denying a goal and goal scoring opportunity which if denied also results in a red card.
In the case of deliberate handling that denies a goal there was no change and it is still a red card.
So in the Japan / Columbia case the referee was 100% correct in that as the offence was deliberate handling the player had to be dismissed for denying an obvious goal by handling.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Jorge,
It is a relatively common misconception that when the referee awards a penalty for an offence that denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) the offending player only receives a yellow card, because of the law change made in 2016 in this regard. I have even heard some commentators and pundits make the same mistaken claim.

The 2016 amendment is not applicable in this instance however, for two reasons. Firstly this was not, strictly speaking, a DOGSO offence, it was the almost identical but slightly different offence of denying a goal and secondly, the law says that:

''Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.''

It is only, in the words of the law, ''if the offence was an attempt to play the ball'' and a penalty is awarded, that a DOGSO offence results in a yellow card.

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

Denying obvious goal by deliberately handing is not down gradable to a yellow. This must be a red card at all times. Other foul DOGSO are downgradable provided a pk was awarded and the foul was not pulling, pushing, or holding...and they made some effort to play the ball.