Soccer Referee Resources
Ask a Question
Recent Questions

RSS FEED Subscribe Now!

Q&A Quick Search
The Field of Play
The Ball
The Players
The Players Equipment
The Referee
The Other Match Officials
The Duration of the Match
The Start and Restart of Play
The Ball In and Out of Play
Fouls and Misconduct
Free Kicks
Penalty kick
Throw In
Goal Kick
Corner Kick

Common Sense
Kicks - Penalty Mark
The Technical Area
The Fourth Official
Attitude and Control
League Specific
High School

Common Acronyms
Meet The Ref
Contact AskTheRef
Help Wanted
About AskTheRef
Panel Login

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.

Read other questions answered by Referee Jason Wright

View Referee Jason Wright profile

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.

Read other questions answered by Referee Joe McHugh

View Referee Joe McHugh profile

Ask a Follow Up Question to Q# 33781
Read other Q & A regarding Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

Soccer Referee Extras

Did you Ask the Ref? Find your answer here.

Enter Question Number

If you received a response regarding a submitted question enter your question number above to find the answer

Offside Question?

Offside Explained by Chuck Fleischer & Richard Dawson, Former & Current Editor of AskTheRef

This web site and the answers to these questions are not sanctioned by or affiliated with any governing body of soccer. The opinions expressed on this site should not be considered official interpretations of the Laws of the Game and are merely opinions of AskTheRef and our panel members. If you need an official ruling you should contact your state or local representative through your club or league. On AskTheRef your questions are answered by a panel of licensed referees. See Meet The Ref for details about our panel members.