Question Number: 33272

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/25/2019

RE: Adult

S of Sys, NSW Australia asks...

Hi I am trying to think of a scenario that would prove the below paragraph:

Q12: If a player commits a DOGSO offence punished by an indirect free kick (IDFK) in the penalty area what is the disciplinary sanction?
The change relating to DOGSO offences is only when the referee awards a penalty kick. This is because the penalty kick effectively restores the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity. As an IDFK does not restore the lost obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the sanction for any DOGSO offence resulting in an IDFK is a sending-off (RC).

--------
The keeper handling the ball after release as it rolls back into the goal? Playing in dangerous manner DOGSO, impediment of progress?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
First off a goalkeeper cannot be dismissed for denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity by a regular handling of the ball inside the penalty area . In fact a GK cannot be cautioned for using a hand to stop the ball entering the goal or playing the ball.
So yes the sanction for an IDFK offences that denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a red card. As to those IDFK offences that deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity they would be extremely rare and very difficult to assess as meeting the DOGSO conditions.
Playing in a dangerous manner would be such an offence yet the difficulty will be deciding if the offence actually denied an opportunity. Can the referee say for certain that without the offence a clear opportunity actually existed. Probably about to head the ball over the line and a high boot of PIADM prevents that happening would be a DOGSO.
There is an element of crystal ball gazing and assessing what would have happened without a physical offence. For instance would the attacker say have got his head to the ball had it not been for a high boot?
Another one would be verbally distracting an opponent. A defender that unsportingly shouts LEAVE IT and an attacker does not play the ball in a goal scoring opportunity situation is an IDFK and a red card offence. Easy on paper yet in a game situation not so easy particularly with a goalkeeper or a team mate present.
So the answer can be easy on paper yet very difficult in a game situation. I personally have never seen an IDFK DOGSO offence.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi S,
Ref McHugh has already covered the fact that goalkeeper handling offences cannot lead to a dismissal, so that leaves primarily the others that he mentions - playing in a dangerous manner (PIADM) and verbal distraction. This might sometimes be difficult to judge but I have seen some clear examples of PIADM leading to DOGSO where a player was about to head the ball into an empty net but was prevented from doing so by an opponent's raised foot. Verbal distraction is a possibility but I would say, more tricky to judge and not very common (especially as a DOGSO offence). I don't personally recall ever having come across an example of verbal distraction used in this way.

Impeding the progress of an opponent without contact is also a theoretical possibility but given that this offence hardly ever happens at all in any situation (I could probably count on the fingers of one hand, the number of times I have seen impeding occur without contact in my entire life) then it is even less likely to occur in the context of DOGSO.

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

See Question: 33275