Question Number: 30285

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/13/2016

RE: Rec High School

Mark of New York, NY USA asks...

Blue has a two-on-one breakaway. The attacker with the ball squares it for his teammate, who is running clean on goal. The Yellow defender, in between the two attackers and inside the penalty area, deliberately blocks the pass with his hand. Does this amount to DOGSO-Handling? The question, I guess, being, how 'obvious' is the goal-scoring opportunity in this case, and can DOGSO be applied on a pass? (This occurred in the Champions League match between Barcelona and Athletico Madrid on 4/13/16; the referee awarded the penalty kick and issued a yellow card, not a red, to the defender.)

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Mark,
The tactical handling of preventing a pass is not as obvious as a handling that denies a goal as the criteria for DOGSO has the ball direction as one of the components. But I still believe that such a tactical foul can merit a red card for DOGSO on certain occasions. Particularly when in tight to the goal and the handling was say to tip the ball away from being tapped in. I suspect we look at the certainty aspect of what constitutes obvious As this referee did and as we all do, in our Matches, we make Decisions thus enhance or embellish our Reputation!
Cheers .

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Mark,
As you state, the receiving player is onside.
There used to be a number of examples of DOGSO in the back of the Laws of the Game (or perhaps it was in the old Q&A - those refereeing before 2006 will know what I'm referring to). One examples was a bouncing through ball played to an attack. While this attacker was running onto the ball, the keeper came out. The ball was going to bounce over the keeper's head, and he punched it away outside the PA. Red card is the correct decision.
What this tells us is that DOGSO can definitely occur when the foul is denying possession to an attacker who is yet to touch the ball.
Control is only a consideration; the player is not required to have control of the ball for DOGSO to be a factor. Rather, we look at whether the receiving player was likely to gain control or not - and if he was going to gain control, would he then have had an OGSO? These questions can be applied in the scenario here, or in cases where, say, an attacker is pushed in the back as he is preparing for a crossed ball.
If the receiving player is likely to be able to gain control and he would have had an OGSO, then a red card is still applicable. If it's doubtful, then there may not be a red card.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Mark
The question the referee has to ask us whether the offence denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity. That is a matter of judgement, a what happened next question if the foul was not committed. If the referee is certain that the handling as an interception clearly denied a goal scoring chance then he is supported in Law in sending the player off. There can be ones where the referee is 100% certain as to what will happen whereas other times he is not so sure. Was the cross too high, was the attacker too far back, where there other players likely to influence subsequent play had the offence not taken place etc.
In the Barcelona incident the referee was certainly generous towards Iniesta as the offence certainly prevented the ball going to the attacker who would have had a clear obvious goal scoring opportunity. The fact that it was denied should have resulted in a dismissal for a DOGSO. In a game situation the what happens next question can be difficult to determine and it is a very rare offence. I think the referee when he sees it from the multiple camera angles will be disappointed with his decision of a caution only.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Mark,
The high school rule for a disqualification (red card) is NFHS Rule 12-8-2df which states: A player other than the goalkeeper within his/her own penalty area deliberately handles the ball, attempting to prevent a goal and the goal is not scored. In your example, the handling was to prevent a pass and not the goal although if the pass would have been completed, a goal possibility could have occurred. I believe that because it was a pass and not a shot at the goal, the caution and penalty kick would be a correct call. I hope that your spring season is a successful one.