Question Number: 35995

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/27/2025

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

This question is a follow up to question 35991

I'm sorry, but I won't let you go just yet. :-) I studied the older Refereeing Assistance Programme 2014-2 (DOGSO/SPA, video B6).

In the 'Reasons' section it says this:

'A defender illegally prevents an attacker who would likely get possession of the ball. However, the offender would be still in the position to challenge the attacker in fair manner, even if the offence had not been committed. An obvious goal-scoring opportunity is therefore not denied. A direct free kick should be awarded and the defender cautioned for unsporting behaviour.'

My hypothetical situation: A10 runs to the goal alone. B5 runs after him, catches up with him, at first they are shoulder to shoulder. Then he overtakes the attacker a little. He tries to play the ball, but hits the attacker in the leg. The ball is still at A10's leg. So B5 is closer to the goal than A10 and the ball. There are no other defenders there. B5 would probably be able to defend the attacker fairly later, even if the foul had not occurred (similar to the RAP advice).

We know that the only thing that is being addressed is whether there are other defenders there (except for the other three D's). But it seems that we can also focus on the defender who committed the foul. It seems intuitively right to me from the beginning. :-)

What is your opinion on this issue? Thank you.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
Two elements at play here.
One is whether a goal scoring opportunity exists and the second is what happens without the offence.
The Laws tries to provide guidance on what constitutes an obvious goal scoring opportunity that is the 4Ds. Distance to the ball, Direction of play, Distance to the ball and number of Defenders. All four conditions need to be present for a DOGSO offence.
The second part is what I call crystal ball gazing of trying to predict what would have happened without the offence.

The DOGSO law is there to prevent a cynical foul at all costs to prevent an opponent from getting an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Like in many offences there is a scale of offence where at one end there is an insignificant foul on an opponent and it does not deny anything whereas at the other end it is a cynical foul say from behind with no attempt to play the ball . Any doubt this is a red card
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uHhnvquQNs

Then there is the grey zone in the middle which is the judgement call that a referee has to make.
Many referees in my opinion do their best to make sure that all four conditions are present. At grassroots level that can be difficult to determine which is why I see possible DOGSOs going to stopping a promising attack.
Now there is a misnomer in the game about last opponent challenges. Not all last defender challenges are denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity and it is a judgement call with perhaps one of the remaining three conditions not being present most likely direction of play or distance to goal.
In your original video to me if the offence was given it was a DOGSO despite the fact that a second defender gets back after the ball is lost. I believe that without the foul the attacker was likely to get a shot away at goal which is a goal scoring opportunity. Anyway that was mute as the referee decided there was no offence and perhaps the seriousness of the decision influenced the call that is I’m not dismissing a player on a questionable offence where the attacker may have gone to ground too easily

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Well, like you say, Petr, the referee first has to determine that a foul has indeed been committed. Once that’s established, we apply the criteria for DOGSO.

For DOGSO situations inside the penalty area, where a penalty kick is awarded, the Laws allow the referee to reduce the sanction to a caution if the foul is a legitimate attempt to play the ball — even if it’s careless or reckless — because the penalty kick itself “restores” the scoring opportunity.

Outside the penalty area, referees are generally less forgiving. If, in your scenario, the foul is judged to be a holding-style offence (i.e., not a genuine attempt to play the ball but rather to unfairly deny the opponent possession or an opportunity), that would typically be treated as DOGSO and could justify a red card.

In the specific old case you’ve described, if the referee believes the defender even after committing the foul would still have been in a position to challenge fairly without denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the correct decision could be:

Direct free kick for the attacking side

Caution for unsporting behaviour (SPA), not DOGSO

The nuance you’re picking up on is valid but in my opinion exceedingly rare, because it’s not only about the presence of other defenders, but also about what the fouling defender could realistically have done if play had continued fairly, and just how fair was it ti that attackers' missed opportunity?
Cheers