Question Number: 35716

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/22/2024

RE: Competitive Adult

Peter Babbage of Hjorring, Denmark asks...

A player is only about a yard from the goal line and about to shoot. The keeper is diving hoping to smother a shot. A defender tackles him from behind clumsily. A penalty is awarded . The tackler gets a yellow card but should he have as it could be considered I guess a double punishment as a spot kick ensues. So my question is was the card correct?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
Thanks for the question.

The answer hinges on whether the referee opined that the foul challenge was a genuine attempt to play the ball in which case a DOGSO red card gets reduced to a yellow with the award of the penalty kick. A one on one eith the goalkeeper in front of goal on an attacker about to shoot reads like denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to me.

I suppose in recent times referees have tended to go with a caution in many situations unless the offence is a pull back, a push, a handling or a no chance of playing the ball challenge in DOGSO situations. I have seen a few DOGSO situations that probably should have been reds yet the leniency of the law change gives the referees wriggle room in not sending off the player if they opine that it was not truly egregious and deemed it an attempt to play the ball, simply downgrading the red to yellow with the penalty award.

If it is not a DOGSO situation the referee has to consider whether the challenge was reckless in its own right in which case it is a yellow card. If it is just a simple foul with nothing else the penalty is sufficient punishment.

From your description I believe a caution may have been correct either way as a DOGSO dismissal gets reduced to a caution if it is opined it was an attempt to play the ball or a reckless challenge from behind would normally be a caution. The latter could make it a DOGSO red if a referee thought it was not a genuine attempt to play the ball. Either way it is a card of some colour.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Peter,
under the old LOTG a red card send off for DOGSO if the 4 criteria were met a reduction in numbers by the opposition was the stated way to punish the offence be it inside or outside the PA with the DFK or PK restart, depending on the location.

What they realized was on the resulting PKs, they were most often converted so the opposition effectively regained their lost opportunity to score and the effect of the defenders having to play a man down for a wayward challenge was deemed as too harsh.

In cases where it was a breaking up of the attacking play (SPA) we only cautioned then showed just a yellow card if that foul occurred inside the PA even though it met the red card DOGSO criteria!

Their thinking was if the challenge was a reasonable effort to win the ball, not a blatant effort to destroy the player, making no effort to play the ball or use the hand to prevent the ball from crossing the resulting PK foul was sufficient to the lost opportunity to score now we only look at the type of force used .

This did NOT apply if the foul occurred OUTSIDE the PA as the DFK is not as good or as certain as a PK. If DOGSO criteria were present the red card shown & the player is sent off reducing his team by a player

If the foul inside the PA was careless just PK, if it was reckless a PK and a caution, if it was DOGSO but SPA again caution and a PK . However if it was SFP,VC, excessive then DOGSO is not the consideration at all, showing red card, send off, reducing numbers and resulting PK is appropriate!

You say clumsily, as in careless or was it a SPA (stop promising attack) which mitigates the DOGSO criteria? If a PK was awarded a caution, show yellow is likely correct.
Cheers