Question Number: 29861

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/26/2015

RE: Travel. Under 15

Scott O'Connor of Lovingston, VA USA asks...

Hello, my name is Scott O'Connor, and I am a U15 travel team coach in Central Virginia.

My question is regarding 'dogso'. They hit us on counter and played a through ball. Caught my defender off guard as Ball was lost in midfield. Their attacker running down field- my defender chasing. Gets to side of him in penalty area, and tries to make tackle. Misses Ball, gets leg- clear penalty. It was also denying goal scoring opportunity and a red card.

As a coach I agree with this. However, my player is 14 years old, and the league we are in doesn't modify it's red card rules for kids, at any age.

At what age does it become common sense, to not apply a red card? Technically this rule could apply to the u8 teams in the lower age groups.

My issue is- he didn't intend any malice, it was an accidental. The poor lad has already given away a penalty, and then he gets a red card for it- which obviously he was upset by.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Scott,
Usually in non 11 aside u little's the use of cards are adjusted. There are blue sit out cards and sin bin type of situations as to opposed to outright expulsions. The IFAB was looking in to counter the red card punishment making it only that game the player has to sit out instead of the mandatory next match. There was talk about only a caution if it was a pk.

DOGSO is different in it is NOT necessarily SFP OR VC, often accidental fouls as you suggest, its true, not always a tactical foul where ball or opponent one but not the other is NOT going through! However, when a foul DOES what it was intended, which is stop the scoring opportunity, then the LOTG are clearly defined! You get the red sleigh and off you go go go!

I proposed an amendment in a local recreational league where if it was just a normal foul, deliberate handling, a trip or a charge that created the DOGSO and the resulting free kick was to score we adjust the punishment to a ten minute sit out, as we have for cautions and allow teams to stay at equal strength. Not sure IFAB would approve but at the recreational fun level it makes a sort of sense .

Given you are at select level play chances are the young lad will have to accept his punishment and not let those through balls through! I know it sucks, kids just want to play, the reasoning of adult play and why the LOTG were designed does not always fit in within the definition of FUN! Try coaching one on one drills and teach them to angle off or get the attackers to commit to their off foot! A slide tackle is always the tackle of last resort by a beaten defender. Hard to time, always fraught with danger and on your butt out of the play far more often than it succeeds

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Scott
The Law on denying a goal or goal scoring opportunity has been under debate for some time now. Even at the highest level teams, coaches are unhappy with the triple punishment of a penalty, a sending off and a one game suspension. Some in FIFA were proposing that in the case of a penalty award that the sanction would get reduced to a caution only. That though did not get approval from IFAB and the board asked that it be looked at by an expert panel. Those deliberations are still on-going.
Now as regards the sanction at Underage IFAB allows the following modifications up to the age of 16.
Any or all of the following modifications are permissible:
# size of the field of play
# size, weight and material of the ball
# width between the goalposts and height of the crossbar from the ground
# duration of the periods of play
# substitutions.
It is generally accepted that in small sided games with other modifications such as no offside, reduced player numbers that disciplinary sanctions can also be relaxed.
However once the game gets to the competitive level at 11 v 11 from U12 onwards then the full implementation of the Law applies. At U14 players have to realize the consequences of a rash challenge in such circumstances.
As a coach I have encouraged players including the goalkeeper not to be rash in these situations. So many times I have watched goalkeepers stand up and not make the rash challenge that always runs the risk of a DOGSO to see the attacker squander the chance. Also I have seen defenders not make the last ditch DOGSO potential challenge to also see the attacker knock it wide or the GK makes a save. The purpose of the sanction is to try to prevent the foul being made in the first place. Flip it over and the player that has committed the foul with no goal scored and no sending off goes up the field later in the game and scores. That is not going to sit very well with the principle of equity and fairness.