Question:
I have some questions regarding DOGSO (Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity). In US Soccer’s Advice to Referee’s, it states that there are four criteria that must be present for DOGSO.
1. Number of Defenders
2. Distance to the Goal
3. Distance to the Ball
4. Direction of PlayThe first element, number of players says that not more than one defender can be between the foul and the goal, not counting the player that committed the foul. It is possible to have defenders closer to the goal than the location of the foul. If those defenders are not directly between the foul and the goal should they be considered in criteria number one? Should we take the first element of DOGSO with a narrow view or should we look at it with a broader perspective? Should defenders that are closer to the goal than the foul always be counted for DOGSO or never be counted? Or should the referee make a judgement call?

Can a DOGSO foul be committed off the field of play when players leave the pitch temporarily during the natural course of the game? Also would defenders who left the field through the natural course of the game be in consideration for element one of DOGSO?

My next questions are also regarding DOGSO. Is a substitute or player that illegally enters the field considered a defender in determining criteria number one?

USSF answer (May 8, 2007):
With regard to the first question, the defenders to be counted are those who are actually able to defend (which is the underlying purpose of this D anyway). Likewise, the understanding of “between” or “closer than” is in the same context — is the defender able to defend? This is not an exercise in geometry, it is decision about whether there is more than one defender who is or would be able to interfere with the fouled player’s drive to the goal in such a way as to lessen the obviousness of the opportunity to score. Accordingly, a second defender lying on the ground in a straight line between the fouled attacker and the goal whose leg was broken would likely not be counted, whereas a defender just a yard away from the goal on the left far off the line the fouled attacker was taking from the right in his drive to the goal probably should be counted.

As for whether a defender off the field could do something that would cause him to be sent off under DGF/DGH, we suspect that a fitting scenario would be VERY, VERY RARE. However, consider the following sequence of events: B5 is ordered off the field to correct a bleeding problem. While off the field being attended to, B5 sees A20 attacking down the middle of the field just above the penalty area with no one at all between him and the goal (the keeper had come out but his challenge, which was unsuccessful, left him on the ground). B5 picks up an object and throws it onto the field. (A) It strikes the attacker who is startled/injured/thrown off his stride/etc. or (B) it strikes the ball and knocks it away from A20’s control. Wouldn’t (A) be DGF and (B) be DGH? We know from other situations that FIFA considers a thrown object an extension of the hand and we also know that merely inserting a body part onto the field is considered the functional equivalent of entering the field.…

Question:
Recently a story was related to me about a dispute between a referee and a coach who felt victimized by a referee’s interpretation of law 8. The official allowed a kick-off, according to the coach, even though the side restarting play had a player run well into the opponent’s end of the field between the time the ref blew his whistle and the the time the kick was taken. That player eventually scored a crucial goal.
The official purportedly acknowledged this and justified his non-call for a re-take of the kick-off on the basis that there’s no law saying the player crossing into his opponent’s end had to wait for the ball to be put in play. In checking law 8, I read that the kick-off procedure is:
* all players are in their own half of the field
* the opponents of the team taking the kick-off are at least 10 yds. from the ball until it is in play
* the ball is stationary on the center mark
* the referee gives a signal
* the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward

While the law seems to suggest that players STAY in their own half of the field until the ball is put in play, it in fact doesn’t state that. However, if players are allowed (as referees sometimes appear to allow them) to run significant paces ahead of any initial play on the ball after the whistle to begin play is blown, is that what the law was meant to allow? I see nothing in the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” or elsewhere for the guidance I am requesting from you.

USSF answer (May 3, 2007):
Yes, ALL players are expected to remain in their own half of the field until the ball is in play. Being in play means that the ball has been kicked and moved forward. That forward motion may be only slight, but it must occur. That’s the Law.

Custom seems to be a bit more laissez faire, with the player who is to receive the kick-off normally a step or two into the other team’s half. Despite being counter to the Law, this is accepted practice throughout the world.

Occasionally one will see other players immediately flying down the field at the moment the referee gives a signal (usually the whistle) and the kicker approaches the ball. While this is done, it is counter to the Law and is NOT accepted practice. Lazy referees will not punish it. Intelligent referees will.…

Question:
Can a referee give a caution for persistent infringement (PI) in the following scenario: A team has decided to employ a tactic to commit small fouls against their opponents after a player has released the ball from his possession. For example, a clip at a heal, a late push, or something where the team is clearly trying to throw off their opponents and upset them by committing these “late” fouls. These fouls are spread out across the team (so not enough for a specific player to earn a caution for PI), and each foul by itself does not really warrant a caution for unsporting behavior (USB). However, if the group of fouls is looked at as a whole, it is clear this team is tactically employing these late, small fouls to frustrate and annoy their opponents and seems to be against the spirit of the game. When the referee has recognized this pattern, is he justified in giving a caution for PI to a player on that team (even if he was not involved in the earlier fouls)? Is this similar to the situation where a player can earn a caution for PI if the team is clearly targeting a single opposing player? Or would a caution given in this case fall under USB?USSF answer (May 2, 2007):
This is not a situation in which the case for persistent infringement has been made. It seems to be more of a situation in which the team has been coached to frustrate, annoy, and intimidate its opponents by these fouls. There is no consistency in the pattern of fouls, but there is a plan to disrupt the opposing team’s flow of play through fouls, rather than through fair play. That is a matter for referee management of the game, but not immediately one of misconduct. The referee should call and and punish the fouls and warn players about these individual fouls. If the players who have fouled before and been warned for it then continue to foul their opponents willy-nilly, this becomes persistent infringement and must be punished as such.…

Question:
What special considerations are required if a player is wearing an artificial limb? Should the limb be padded? If it is an artificial leg, is a shin guard required on that limb?USSF answer (May 1, 2007):
Players with casts are allowed to play, provided the cast is properly padded and is not used as a weapon during a challenge for the ball. In our opinion an artificial limb should also be padded. Because shinguards are basic compulsory equipment. the player wearing the artificial limb should also wear a shinguard with the limb.

The primary concern is the safety of all participants and the final decision is made by the referee on the particular game.

The USSF position on non-compulsory equipment was set out in this memorandum of September 3, 2003:
Memorandum

To: State Referee Administrators //snipped//
From: Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education
Subject: Players Wearing Non-Compulsory Equipment
Date: September 3, 2003

__________________________________________________

On August 25, 2003, FIFA issued Circular #863, regarding the legality of players wearing non-compulsory equipment.

FIFA notes that, under the “Powers and Duties” of the referee in Law 5 — The Referee, he or she has the authority to ensure that the players’ equipment meets the requirements of Law 4, which states that a player must not wear anything that is dangerous.

Modern protective equipment such as headgear, face-masks, knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight, padded material are not considered dangerous and are therefore permitted.

FIFA also wishes to strongly endorse the statement on the use of sports spectacles made by the International F.A. Board on March 10, 2001, and subsequently in FIFA Circular #750, dated April 10, 2001. New technology has made sports spectacles much safer, both for the player himself or herself and for other players. This applies particularly to younger players.

Referees are expected to take full account of this fact and it would be considered extremely unusual for a referee to prevent a player taking part in a match because he or she was wearing modern sports spectacles.

Referees are reminded of the following points which can assist in guiding their decisions on this matter:

Look to the applicable rules of the competition authority. – Inspect the equipment.
– Focus on the equipment itself–not how it might be improperly used, or whether it actually protects the player.
– Remember that the referee is the final word on whether equipment is dangerous.…

Question:
I observed an interesting situation last weekend. At the start of the second half, the ref counted players and somehow missed the 12th on Team B. Team A kicks off and immediately loses the ball. Team B takes it in and scores in the first few seconds. To the ref’s credit, he senses something is amiss and begins to count players. Team A’s coach picks up on this and and starts screaming “No goal! Too many players!” The ref goes to both coaches and says something. He then waves off the goal and restarts the second half. We found out later he told the coaches his watch had not started so he just restarted the 2nd half, disallowing the goal. Interesting way to solve a problem, but is it correct?

USSF answer (April 30, 2007):
A very creative solution, but, despite demonstrating the referee’s ability to think outside the box, it was not quite correct.

We supplied this answer last December. It is still valid:
USSF answer (December 12, 2006):
In all cases the extra player is removed and cautioned (unless an outside agent) for unsporting behavior.

If the extra player is discovered only after the ball has been kicked off, the goal counts. The game is restarted in accordance with the Law–i. e., if it went out of play, the restart is a throw-in, corner kick, goal kick, or free kick, depending on the reason the ball was out of play. If the referee stopped play, it is an indirect free kick from the place where the ball was when the referee stopped play.

If the extra player is discovered BEFORE the kick-off, the goal is canceled only if the extra player was on the scoring team or if the extra person was an outside agent who, in the opinion of the referee, did not in any way interfere with play or any player. The restart is determined by who the extra “player” was. If it was an outside agent–not a player or a substitute or substituted player–the restart is a dropped ball at the top of the defending team’s goal area. If it was a player who had left the game with the referee’s permission but re-entered without permission , the restart is an indirect free kick for the defending team, to be taken from within their goal area. If it was a substitute who had entered without the referee’s permission, the restart is an indirect free kick to be taken from the defending team’s goal area.…

Question:
The local youth league requires players that are sitting out a game due to either a red card or accumulation of yellow cards, be present at the game for the sit-out to count. This weekend I was the center ref for a U-19 boys game, and one of the teams had a player serving a sit-out. Towards the end of the game, this player starting yelling foul and abusive language at an opponent. The AR on that side of the field attempted to diffuse the situation, but was unable to get the player to shut-up. During the next stoppage of play, the AR got my attention, informed me of what happened, and I then issued a red card to this player, and made him leave the area.My question is, since this player in not eligible to participate, is he still considered a substitute? In other words, can I still show him a red card? It is more a technique question, as I can expel anyone from the team area for improper behavior, but I can only show a card to a player or substitute. If I didn’t follow the proper procedure, what would the proper procedure be?

USSF answer (April 30, 2007):
The fact that the player was present at the game should have been enough to satisfy the league’s requirement. You may be sure that the league will pay special attention to a player who does not take to heart the lesson they were trying to teach.

If the player is required to be present, even in a non-playing role, he is considered to be a part of the team, a quasi-team official for lack of any other convenient term. It would not be proper to show this person a card, but as a team official he would be expelled for irresponsible behavior. The referee must provide full details in the match report.

Referees should not be held responsible for enforcing league-imposed punishment. That is a matter for the league to police.…