Question Number: 16852

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/23/2007

RE: Rec, division one Under 19

Dave Hanson of Carmichael, ca USA asks...

My question has to do with a possible denial of a goal scoring opportunity. While evaluating our referees during a U19 rec match, I watched as the attacking player made a break-away from the defenders and head straight to the goal. As the goalie approached the attacker, the attacker pushed the ball past the goalie and the goalie came upright into the attacker knocking her from her feet and stopped the momentum of the attacker's play. The center ref issued the goalie a yellow card (reckless tripping) and gave the attacker's team a free kick from just outside the penalty box. Had the body check by the goalie not occurred, the attacker had a most certain goal. I thought of two other scenarios for the ref: Red card the goalie for DGSO and award the attacking team the free kick or Yellow card the goalie for the tripping foul and award the attacking team a PK as the foul occurred at the top of the penalty box and was 50/50 if in or out of the box. Thank-you for all of your helpful advice.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

If in the opinion of the referee the foul denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), the card should have been red. That is true whether the restart is a DFK because it happened outside the PA, or a penalty kick.

I'm sure you are familiar with the "4 D's" that USSF offers as a means to evaluate DOGSO:
* Direction of play
* Distance to goal
* Distance of the player to the ball
* Defenders - no more than one not including the fouler
It sounds like all of these may have been met in the play you describe, but one would have to be there to make an accurate assessment. Was the referee able to explain to you why he felt DOGSO did not apply?

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Dave here is the assessor's plight. He sees something he knows is slightly off the mark and wants to discuss it with the referee. He must ask what the referee saw! Then the referee must be able to relate the facts connected with that particular event. If the referee is able to offer a valid explanation then he is correct in what he did. Statements like I didn't see it as DOGSO need to be clarified to ensure he is following the proper steps in qualifying the event one way or another. If the referee doesn't know how to qualify the 4D's then there is work to be done. If the referee is of the mind a sending-off is not warranted because the foul was not hard enough or is too early or late in the match AND the 4D's were met the referee simply doesn't have the courage to enforce the Law. This is grounds for a failing grade on the assessment.

If the referee understands AND knows the requirements AND that they were not met, in his opinion, then that's a done deal. His opinion regarding facts connected with play are final and you can't fault him for that.

The assessor can and should, if he is sure the referee missed something, suggest he attempt to gain a better angle to view future events of this nature. There are times when the referee's ability to see is blocked by the two players themselves or by other players interposing themselves between the referee and the challenge.

The astute assessor will be prepared to discuss these matters and offer alternatives that will place the referee in better position. A good assessor will offer suggestions based on the age and fitness of the referee. At the very highest level of refereeing there is no position a referee is unable to gain based on his being unfit. In the trenches where most referees are fitness is a huge issue and having a good angle of view from 30 yards can be possible and should be a referee's ultimate goal if there are fitness issues to deal with. An experienced referee does this without thinking, an inexperienced referee doesn't know to do this -- the assessor gives him this knowledge and checks to see if he is using it.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Robert Evans

The in-or-out part of the decision belongs entirely to the referee, and without video evidence, or a position exactly across from the top of the penalty-area, no assessor can second-guess the referee, but, as for the foul itself...

An observer, imitating Socrates (who pretended ignorance in order to learn what his students knew) can get all the relevant information from the referee, and lead him to the right decision about the nature of the foul. And he can do it without ever saying that the referee screwed up. Examples:
Do you think that the forward could have scored if the goalkeeper hadn't knocked him down?
Do you think another defender could have come across to tackle the forward?
How far away was he?
Could the defender have reached the ball?
How far would he have had to run to get it?
How far would the forward have had to run to get it? Etc, etc, etc.
The observer will ask questions about all aspects of the four D's until the referee's answers demonstrate that in fact, the foul (as described in the question above) met all the requirements for a DOGSO. He will draw the conclusion himself about his mistake, and, like a good "Grasshopper", achieve more wisdom than if he had been simply told he screwed up.