Question Number: 35991

Mechanics 8/25/2025

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 35990

I also found this Swedish one. It works in the Czech Republic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8y3oRqYCiI

(time 0:35)

1. The referee let it play. VAR called him probably because of DOGSO. The referee disagreed with VAR after watching the video. Probably it wasn't a foul. Personally, it seems to me that it didn't even have to be DOGSO situation. The defender got closer to the goal than the attacker and the ball. I have a bit of a problem with this. It seems unclear to me. :-)

2. I have another question from your practice. How likely is it that kicking an opponent's leg (foot) with a football boot will not result in a yellow card? It seems to me that this is rather exceptional. Most of the time, the referee will give a card, even if it is in play and in a challenge for the ball.

Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI petr,
link worked!
good job finding it.

Had a look, limited angle view as armchair referee. To me it looked like the referee had a pretty good view of it, where he was running from behind. Also the AR looking in would also have a pretty good view. I am a little bit puzzled at the VAR intervention because the referee clearly signaled play to continue! He Was Right there, probably would have talked communicated with the AR who probably could have given some feedback.

VAR can recommend a review if they believe there’s been a “clear and obvious error” in four specific situations, one of which is a potential Denial of an Obvious Goal‑Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO). In this case, VAR likely thought the contact might have been a foul that denied such an opportunity, which could mean a red card.

After looking at the footage on the monitor, the referee stuck with the original call no foul, thus no DOGSO, & no yellow for stopping a promising attack so play should continue from the natural stoppage point.

VAR flagged it as a possible red‑card DOGSO, the referee reviewed it, decided it wasn’t even a foul, and the match carried on. Since the referee had already waved play on, the only reason to halt it would have been if was upheld. Once the referee rejected the VAR’s recommendation, the game continued from wherever the ball was when the check finished.
That’s why you saw the odd pause without any card or free kick

VAR scope isn’t about where the player falls, it’s about the type of possible offence and whether it fits the narrow “checkable” categories: goal, penalty, red card (including DOGSO), or mistaken identity. So, even if the referee clearly waved play on, VAR can recommend a review if they believe a potential red‑card offence (DOGSO) or a penalty might have been missed.
Cheers
PS As for the second part of your question. Generally if you kick a player especially with any degree of force that's likely cautionable because it's usually minimum reckless even possibly violent and excessive. To downgrade it into just a careless kick with some minimal impact might just be a stumble or a light Tap, somebody tries to bring the foot away or places the foot in front of yours as you begin to kick. There are few absolutes in this game there's usually varying Shades of Grey but there are general standards that are reflected in Common sense refereeing. I like to tell all players you treat the referee like a playing condition good or bad , rainy or sunny you simply adapt.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
Thanks for the video and follow up.
To me I could see why this was referred by VAR for review. My view of it is that the Yellow defender puts his arm on the attackers back in an unnatural challenge position and that continues for a few strides and then the Blue attacker loses balance and goes to ground. The referee probably thought that the arm action of Yellow was not sufficient to have brought the Blue attacker to ground and that the attacker when the ball was mis-controlled chose to ignore the foul as it would have been soft for such a big call.

At the moment of the contact the conditions of a DOGSO are present. It is only as play rolls on that a 2nd Yellow defender gets in place. If the foul was given I believe the DOGSO conditions were present and then were not present at the final ball loss.

What I will say is that the referee gets very close to the action and may have sensed the lack of force, hence his call. At the Pro level a higher level of physicality is expected and tolerated.
It is good use of VAR as the referee gets another go at what was a big call in the game as it most likely a DOGSO red card as that is the only reason it can be reviewed. Anyway the referee was happy with his original decision. I like this as I don’t like the reviews that only end up as a change of on field decision. All too often I only see one outcome when a referee goes to the monitor.
As to the kicking foul it is an offence to kick an opponent. One of the difficulties for referees is determining if there is a kick particularly when the ball is available to be played. There is a kick on a player in the build up to the 2nd goal yet it looks like Yellow kicked Blue which would have been a penalty. Both players appear to get hurt in the challenge.
If a penalty was awarded I would not see a card as it is careless in my opinion and not reckless.
When it is obvious that a player has been reckless it is most certainly a card. The test is determining all the elements that make up reckless ie speed, intent, malice, potential to play the ball etc. and also what actually happened in the level of contact. In the modern game with VAR the level of contact can be feigned hoping for VAR intervention.