Question Number: 33781

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/18/2019

RE: Competitive Under 16

Eugene of San Jose, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 33780

Referee Wright says: 'typically for DOGSO fouls we take the player committing the foul out of the question.'

Does this mean that we should invoke DOGSO even when the infringing player had ample opportunity to prevent the OGSO without committing a foul? In the referenced video clip, Howard could have trivially kicked the ball out for a throw in or corner kick rather than PIADM/handling the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Eugene,
Thank you for the question.
You're correct that the keeper could easily have played the ball legally. However, he chose not to. We're not in the business of making our disciplinary decisions on what he had the option of doing. One could make the argument that if the keeper really could have made a legal play with the same beneficial outcome, then he would have.
The keeper could have kicked it out for a throw or corner, yes, but he decided that was not the best outcome. Rather the best outcome, it seems, was to retain possession.
Evidently, the keeper felt that he may not be able to retain possession by legal means, so decided to commit a foul.

In most fouls, the player could have played it legally - but either through carelessness or recklessness (ignoring SFP for the moment) didn't. We act on what happened.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Eugene
There must be an offence for consideration of denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Had Howard kicked the ball away then there was no possibility of a DOGSO.
When we consider DOGSO we take into account the 4Ds and they are
# Distance between the offence and the goal
# general Direction of the play
# likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (Distance to the ball)
# location and number of Defenders.
On the location and number of defenders we look to consider what other defenders are close so as to be able to tackle or prevent an opportunity.
In the example involving Tim Howard had he committed an offence in the opinion of the referee there was no other Blue Everton player close to make a challenge so it would have in my opinion denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
As there was no offence called it was play on.