Question Number: 31054

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/26/2016

RE: Club soccer - Cal South Under 17

Mitchell Bhoopat of Rancho Cucamonga, California United States asks...

I'm hoping you can please clarify 2 situations for me - thanks much.

1) When a DOGSO offence has occurred but advantage is played and a goal is scored, is it mandatory to still give the offending player a red card, or would a yellow card be considered sufficient enough punishment?

2) In a game I just watched in Mexico (Tijuana-Leon), the GK for Leon committed a foul in the penalty area against a Tijuana forward, but the CR did not call anything at that time. The play continued, and after '5-10 seconds, the CR then stopped play after another foul against a Tijuana forward outside the area. To my surprise, he THEN consulted his AR (who had apparently been flagging him for a PK since the original foul occurred IN the area) and called a PK on the original foul in the area. Please clarify for me if the CR was correct in backtracking to award the PK, or did he make a mistake. Thank you very much for your time and input.

Mitchell

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Mitchell,
Question 1
NO it is not mandatory and even a caution show the yellow is NOT mandatory either should a goal result. You need to evaluate the circumstances and weigh the options and conduct of what has transpired.

In any form of a DOGSO situation be it for physical player contact or a handling the ball the foul, it can be a careless foul or a reckless or tactical (if it was for VC or SFP then DOGSO is not the main reason for a stoppage or to show a red card forcing the send off as the unsafe forceful behaviour takes precedent) but if it denies the opportunity to score and the criterion are met it is still a red card not for the foul but BECAUSE it prevented a chance for a goal. If you play advantage, which you can do with ANY foul although there are risk/rewards given certain situations, you can smile a big smile when it results in a goal because DOGSO NO LONGER applies if a goal results from an advantage off a foul that contained the necessary 4 Ds of DOGSO criteria . The reckless, excessive or tactical aspect will still be in misconduct evaluation but not DOGSO. Now there is slight possibility we offer a advantage off a DOGSO situation and although the opportunity to score was crystal clear the attackers muff it up and play continues in effect the keeper recovers and makes a sensational save. We have the possibility of a red card send off for the DOGSO player guilty of stopping a goal versus merely stopping the opportunity.

Denying a goal is in my opinion a far greater transgression then breaking up the attack which could have resulted in a obvious opportunity to score on goal. Lets say a defender on the goal line reaches up and uses his arm to stop a ball from entering the goal and it bounces out to another attacker who just has to tap it into the goal but he pounds it into the crossbar as you delay the whistle expecting a goal. Now we have no goal, the deliberate handling stopped a sure goal and although we had an opportunity to score another one but missed do we say these are equal in nature? In my opinion NO we stop play to award the PK and send off for DOGSO.

However, if you do apply advantage and play continues but no goal results you could consider the offending player as on a red card and award an INDFK if he becomes involved in play only if you are going to send him off for the denial of the goal. If it was only an opportunity to have a shot and it was missed then consider the DOGSO criteria as no longer applicable because obvious opportunity is not the same as denied goal in my opinion

Question 2
A CR can ACT upon the advise of a neutral party like his ARS IF they report to him something he DID not see and already pass judgement on.
Be good to see video of the PK incident so we can surmise how, given we now can only speculate on the why as to what happened and who saw it where and when. The CR and ARs in the pregame go over who has responsibility within the PA . If the AR spots a transgression he will look to see if the CR has it covered. But if he feels the CR was screened or blocked and is convinced he must bring it to the attention of the CR he would be instructed to flag it and get the CR attention. The fact there was a follow foul close to the 1st one might be a coincidence and it may have looked like an advantage was being considered by the CR given he has gone back to the PK as the spot of the original foul. Ten seconds though is a long time to take back an advantage although 5 seconds is within possibility. I will try to see if I can find a video highlight a bit later
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Mitchell
A DOGSO red card must not be shown when a goal has been scored. Nothing has been denied so there is no sending off offence. The referee may decide to go back to caution for the foul which could be for a reckless element or other elements that the referee would normally caution for which includes a tactical foul, deliberately handling the ball etc. The referee could also send the player off for serious foul play in such situations but not for a DOGSO.
On your second question the referee can go back to an unseen foul after consulting with an assistant. If however the referee has seen the foul, played the advantage and advantage has been realised with say 10 seconds played then he cannot go back. USSF at one time opined that after a lengthy missed flag that it was not possible to go back to the foul yet misconduct could still be dealt with and the restart was a dropped ball. How long is lengthy is not defined although I would say 10+ seconds certainly is particulary if there is a new phase of play.
Now at the Pro level referees are mindful of how the decision looks. Perhaps the referee decided to allow play to continue on a silent advantage and then when it did not work out after too long a period to go to the assistant to *show* that the AR had seen the foul and that the penalty kick is the correct decision. I recall an incident in an SPL game where a referee awarded a penalty, thought better of it and then consulted with his assistant to overturn the call. It looked like the AR had helped the referee yet it later transpired that the referee had decided himself to overturn the decision and felt that it looked better to have been helped by the AR to go with a dropped ball. I knew looking at it that the AR had accepted the penalty call. With buzzers available to the elite referees missed incident rarely occur when there is a flag. If it is missed then both miss it.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Mitchell,
1) Not mandatory - and in fact if the only reason for considering a red card was because of the failed DOGSO attempt then it should definitely not be a red card. It is only if the offence itself is worthy of a red card (serious foul play etc) that the player should be dismissed. As for a yellow card, once again if a goal is scored, it would depend on the nature of the offence and whether it was worthy of a caution in and of itself. If the attempted DOGSO by is handling though, a yellow card is now mandatory. In the 2016-17 Laws, it states:

''... a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, [...] if a player:
- handles the ball [...] in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal''

2) The Laws say that:

''The referee may not change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted ...''

Since in this case, play had not stopped and subsequently restarted after the penalty incident, the referee is entitled to change the decision, go back and award the penalty. As my colleagues have stated, it is unusual to let play go on for quite so long before going back and changing a decision but in law, the referee has not made a technical error by doing so.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 31059

See Question: 31060