Question Number: 35725

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/26/2024

RE: Comp. Under 17

Larry of Danville, CA United States asks...

Imagine a DOGSO situation where the attacker is near goal, heading to goal, in possession or likely to be in possession of the ball, and no other defenders between them and the goalkeeper. A defender comes in and does a slide tackle and takes out the legs of the attacker. Straight forward DOGSO. Now the exact same situation, but the defender makes contact with the ball first, knocking it away, and then wipes out the attacker with a high leg, which you decide is a carless or reckless foul. The fairly common “I got the ball first foul”. Does the fact that the defender got the ball first and then fouls the attacker remove the possibility of DOGSO?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Larry,

The key though is to be certain all 4 DOGSO criteria was 100% met prior to the foul.
Knocking the ball away first -might- indicate there was no certainty?
I understand your thinking, if the ball is no longer able to be played & most importantlyall chances lost to recover.

I recall similar situations where the slide tackle pops the ball out, headed over the goal line for a corner and then the follow through occurs just after or just prior to the ball being out of play into touch. I often see the referee awarding just the corner kick awarded rather than a PK. Similar to a player missing a sitter, shooting wide, then getting cleaned out. We seem to think it is a punishment for messing up the scoring chance! lol

You stated a slide tackle that contacts the player and spills him versus one that knocks the ball away first, then spills him. You say the DOGSO criteria are 100% present in both situations.
The LOCATION is important!
If the defensive tackle is performed & adjudged as OUTSIDE the PA, be it a straight up, SFP (excessive), reckless, or even careless foul given the DOGSO criteria is met, that player will be shown the red card and sent off reducing his team by a player the opposition awarded a DFK restart. It would not make any difference if the ball was contacted first, IF, the referee held the opinion, the attacking player was fouled in such a way the contact was inevitably dangerous due to the force & direction, either through, into or scissored the attacker.

It is a different proposition if it occurs inside the PA, because we now can decide if this was a SPA (stopping a promising attack) as a reasonable challenge gone awry and look at the force and how the tackle was performed!

One could reasonably claim the resultant leg contact -after- the ball was contacted, the attacker fell over the defender and see it as a successful challenge thus play on, no foul!
More so if it was the same leg as opposed to the trailing leg but every situation is adjudged on its own merits!

When the defensive tackle is performed & adjudged as INSIDE the PA we will look closer to the type of foul and at what conditions existed. The direct slide into the player could be seen as SFP (serious foul play) excessive, that player will be shown the red card and sent off reducing his team by a player. The opposition awarded a PK restart. Stopping the opportunity was why the foul occurred but DOGSO is less serious than SFP or VC even if all 3 are red card send offs.

However, if that direct slide was seen more as a reckless effort and DOGSO criteria was met, the fact we upgrade the DFK foul into a PK restores the lost opportunity and as a SPA foul but reasonable in the mechanics, we only show a yellow card and caution the defender.

As to the foul where the ball is contacted first with resulting secondary contact causing a careless foul but yet is seen as a reasonable effort to play the ball gone awry!
We can dismiss the DOGSO because it occurred within the PA and need only show a yellow card and caution the defender awarding the PK to the attackers!

It is important to understand the DOGSO red card criteria is not applied inside the PA but ONLY if the action by the defender was a reasonable effort to challenge. A shirt pull or a handling foul or an excessive tackle are NOT considered as a reasonable effort and as such DOGSO criteria apply red card shown player reduction in numbers a fact of life!

If no DOGSO criteria was met, but there was a foul, we would caution show a yellow card if it was deemed a reckless foul or no card at all if deemed a careless foul. The restart depending on the location, if inside the PA, upgraded to PK status, whereas outside, a DFK!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Hi Larry,

You indicate refereeing under 17 games, so you most likely do high school games. For DOGSO in high school as indicated in NFHS rules 12.6 and 12.7, the foul must deny the opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

The rules do not mention if the player committing the foul contacts or does not contact the ball prior to the foul. Thus, even though the player contacted the ball a DOGSO could be called and the proper penalty given.

However, the referee must decide if an obvious goal scoring opportunity exists. Since the player contacted the ball first, the contacting the ball may cause the referee to decide there was no obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Have a very successful fall season of officiating.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Larry
Thanks for the question.

The first consideration is whether there is an offence or not. As you know if there is no offence play continues.
Now we know that an offence can be committed while playing the ball. Playing the ball is not a free pass at no possible offence. Once a referee opines that the challenge for the ball is careless or reckless it is an offence punished by a direct free kick or a penalty kick and perhaps a card. Law 12 clearly spells that out
It makes no difference that a player says *I got the ball ref* when the action is plainly careless or reckless in a challenge. As I always say to players when I hear that ‘got the ball’ comment I say * What has the ball to do with it*

In the recent Manchester United v Crystal Palace game there was a challenge for the ball by a United player who jumped two footed into a challenge making contact with the ball only. The referee correctly called the offence and cautioned the player even though there was zero contact on the opponent. It is an outlier yet it does highlight that a challenge just has to be careless or reckless to be called and sanctioned.
Palace players thought that it should have been a dismissal for serious foul play yet as there was no contact the correct decision was a caution. That was confirmed by the PL Games panel that reviews critical incidents in games.

Now in respect of denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity once the four conditions are present at the MOMENT of the challenge then it is a dismissal. While I grasp your thinking, it is the offence that moved the ball away from the attacker therefore denying the opportunity. If there is no offence what happens? The player continues and has a goal scoring opportunity.
Sure one could say that about any offence such as a trip from behind just after an attacker has last touched the ball. The attacker will be on the ground and the ball more than likely yards away maybe even picked up by the goalkeeper. It is a clear DOGSO once the 4 conditions are present.

As I always advise a referee has to opine what is the likely outcome without the foul. Its based on a referee’s knowledge of the game and understanding the what is likely to happen without the foul ever being committed and setting that against the 4 D conditions.
Yes there could be a situation where the ball is played away legally and then in a subsequent follow on the attacker is clearly fouled. Those tend to be very rare such as a fair tackle followed by a foul and in many instances where the ball is seen to be played away the subsequent contact may be seen as a coming together and more than likely not called.
There is a world of difference though between that type of challenge and the one that takes ball, legs everything in the same action.

What I can say is that once there is a challenge offence in a DOGSO situation with the four D conditions present the game expects a dismissal on a direct free kick offence and if it is a genuine attempt to play the ball on a penalty award it is a caution. If however the foul challenge use excessive force it is a red card dismissal for serious foul play in all circumstances.