Question Number: 35794

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/11/2024

RE: Competitive

Peter Babbage of Hjorring , Denmark asks...

During this weekends games a game that was somewhat controversial in light of today’s events has come under the spotlight even more. Liverpool player I think it was Salah was racing towards goal and is brought down. The referee decided it wasn’t a foul. The ball broke to Nunez who scored.Just a personal opinion but I thought it was a foul. So if we proceed on that basis and it was deemed to be a foul, should the Villa player have seen red? Liverpool scored but in my opinion they were dogso if that first incident was deemed a foul. What if Nunez ( as is often the case ) had blazed it wide?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
Thanks for the question.

The Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity DOGSO red card by its name suggests it is about denying. If nothing has been denied then there is no red card.

So in the Liverpool case or any other case for that matter if advantage is played and realised there cannot be a dismissal for DOGSO. There could be a caution for the reckless manner of the challenge before the next restart. So even if it was a clear foul on Salah and the ball went to Nunez the only question at stake is whether advantage has been realised or not. If say play was brought back to the offence and it is not a penalty kick or a genuine challenge for the ball a dismissal can still take place for a DOGSO once the 4 conditions are present.

I recall in a particular game a number of seasons ago a forward was through on goal with only the goalkeeper to beat just inside the penalty area. The attacker at the last moment passed the ball left to a team mate and the goalkeeper then tripped the passer in an attempt to win the ball.. The team mate received the ball and dribbled on to just outside the goal area where he had a shot with his weaker left foot. A combination of a bobble and a poor kick ended up with the kicker hitting the outside of the the post with the ball going wide. There was gasps for such an obvious miss. I went with the advantage which for me was realised so the restart was a goal kick and very little if any complaint! Without the advantage it was a clear red card as it was before the law change. Today it would be a caution if I went back to a
penalty kick.
So the same could have applied to the Nunez incident. It would have been a judgement call by the referee on whether advantage was realised or not. It could only be a DOGSO if play is brought back to the original offence.
If advantage was realised with a miss then it is a goal kick and no DOGSO card.

I also recall a game where a defender handled a shot on the goal line denying an obvious goal. I blew too soon as the rebound was dispatched to the goal by another attacker just before the whistle sounded. I had to go with a red card and a penalty as advantage was not now possible. Guess what? The penalty was missed.
The better decision would have been to delay the whistle, play advantage, award the goal and caution the defender as the goal would not have been denied.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Peter,
As my colleague ref McHugh alludes to, if a goal is scored, then a goal scoring opportunity has not been denied and so the player cannot be sent off.

Although this is not explicitly stated in the laws, I think that by parsing the meaning of the following two paragraphs from Law 12, the intent of the law in this regard can be seen.

"Delaying the restart of play to show a card

Once the referee has decided to caution or send off a player, play must not be restarted until the sanction has been administered, unless the non-offending team takes a quick free kick, has a clear goal-scoring opportunity and the referee has not started the disciplinary sanction procedure. The sanction is administered at the next stoppage if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned if the offence interfered with or stopped a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

Advantage

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."

So using the above as a guide, I think it is relatively clear that if a player commits an offence that in isolation, would have merited a sending off for denying a goal scoring opportunity, but a goal is scored in the immediate aftermath, the player is not sent off.