Question Number: 35314

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/2/2024

Barry Stewart of Chilliwack, BC Canada asks...

Happy New Year to all the panel.

I just saw this clip on Facebook and wonder a few things:

1.) DOGSO all day... correct? Some silly folk on FB were saying the attacker deserved a red card for not shooting earlier. :)

2.) If the defender had waited till he was in the PA... is he still getting red carded?

3.) Not really a ref's concern... but any guesses as to what the attacker was thinking, not shooting earlier? Tactical decision?

Thanks again!

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1124544222244652

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Barry
Happy New Year
This would be a red card inside or outside of the penalty area. It is certainly a DOGSO yet for me it is Serious Foul Play. Inside the penalty area there is no attempt to play the ball which makes it a DOGSO red card.
SFP carries a much stiffer disciplinary sanction and a referee would be doing the defender a favour by dismissing here for a DOGSO.
In our Leagues a DOGSO red card would normally attract a one game ban while serious foul play would typically be 3 games.

As to why the attacker waited I have seen plenty of attackers failing to hit the target of an open goal from distance. He may not have trusted his shot from distance and at speed so he may have been trying to make absolutely certain which went pear shaped.
I doubt very much his decision was tactical or thought through. I have no idea of the score or when it happened in the game.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Barry
hope your Christmas was merry and the new year brings you 100% correct offside decisions! lol
SFP challenge, no ifs or buts or doubts!
DOGSO criteria is irrelevant as is the fact he refused to shoot early.
Same challenge in the PA is simply a PK instead of a DFK outside, the red card for SFP remains reduce the team by a player!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Barry,

It's a very clear DOGSO. Attacker in front of an open goal, ball at his feet, no other defender can intercept before he's in shooting range (which, at this level and an open goal, he's already in).

It's also a very clear SFP. Leaps in from behind does it. Jumping in and trapping an ankle between the legs also qualifies as it is very dangerous and can put a lot of strain on the ankle.

Personally, I'd submit it as SFP and include in the report that it was also DOGSO, though different jurisdictions may have different preferences on how they prefer this sort of thing to be recorded.

Therefore, because it's SFP as well as DOGSO, in the PA he's still being sent off. Given that it was neither an attempt to play the ball nor a challenge for the ball, even in the PA the DOGSO alone is enough for a RC. But, again, with SFP it's a red either way - and in the PA I'd especially encourage you to report it as SFP rather than DOGSO. Reporting it as DOGSO with a mention of SFP in the report, means that the committee could, based on their poor understanding of the laws, interpret it as DOGSO-RC not being possible, and could then choose to ignore the SFP.

As to the why - perhaps the attacker was still trying to get closer and was worried about missing the goal - we've seen plenty of attackers miss open goals, so perhaps he was trying to make sure.