March 6, 2016

The IFAB relativizes "Triple Punishment" for DOGSO inside Penalty Area

At their 128th meeting, the International Football Associations Board has defined a revision of Law 12 with regard to denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) within the penalty area. In other words: The so-called "Triple Punishment" has been softened.


In future, referees will not only have to assess whether a clear, obvious goal-scoring opportunity was denied by an infringement. Instead, they will have to pay more attention to the type of offence, the intention of the offender and the possibility to play the ball while making the challenge which has denied the obvious goal-scoring opportunity:

"Where a player commits an offence within his own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player should be cautioned [with a yellow card] unless:

- The offence is holding, pulling or pushing OR

- The offending player does not attempt to play the ball OR there is no possibility to play the ball OR

- The offence is one which is punishable by a red card wherever it occurs on the field of play (e.g. SFP, VC).

In all the above circumstances the player should be dismissed [with a red card] from the field of play."

Thus, the IFAB seems to react to the perceived unfairness that a team is punished three times due to the same, maybe unlucky infringement: 1) Red Card, 2) Penalty / Goal, 3) Post-Match Suspension.

From my personal view, changing sth at point 1) is not in the spirit of the Laws of the Game and football itself. Players, who deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, maybe even a safe goal should be sent off no matter whether their offence was deliberate or not. Instead, point 3) would have been a point which could have been reflected. In case of a goal scored from the penalty spot, one could have prevented the offender from any sort of post-match suspension, for example.

The typical argument of those in favour of abolishing the triple punishment is that the obvious goal-scoring opportunity would be reinstated by the penalty kick, so that a red card would not be necessary. In UEFA Champions League's last seasons, only 60-70% of the penalty kicks were converted into goals though. In decisive World Cup matches, the percentage is even a bit lower. 

Imagine a defender denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. As it was a normal sliding tackle and maybe only a careless challenge in itself, a yellow card and a penalty are awarded. The penalty is missed by the attacker. Some minutes later, the same defender scores the decisive goal on the other side of the field. Is that fair?

Furthermore, the new wording might create more irritation and provide players with a target than before: While offences like holding, pulling or pushing are relatively clear and easy to detect and dismissing players for offences which are red cards everywhere of the field is nothing new either, assessing the possibility and the intention to play the ball will lead to tons of grey area situations with no clear solution (see handball, where intention is a vital criteria).

What about this tackle for example? No chance to play the ball? Or did he have the possibility? Did he want to play the ball? Mere speculation. This point might be abused by professional players as well.

On the other hand, this point is no complete novelty either: At least in Germany, the unofficial guidelines for fouls by goalkeepers within their own penalty area go into a similar direction: If they tried to play the ball, referees are mostly instructed to caution them...

What is your reaction to the new guideline?

Your reaction to the new DOGSO instruction?

Great - makes things easier and more just.
A mess - makes things more complex and unfair.
Neutral.
make a quiz

15 Comments:

  1. It's most likely quite clear to mention that DOGSO is no longer possible for technical offences that are possible via an indirect free kick restart from how it looks like the new Laws will be worded.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you know, how handball DOGSO will be punished with the new rules?
    Always red, always yellow or it depends?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Handball on the line or deniying a clear goal will stay always RED CARD.

      Delete
    2. And handball which denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity? ;)

      Delete
    3. Since deliberate handball is an unfair attempt to play the ball, logically, the player should still get a RC, because not interested in playing fairly the ball, but only in committing a foul.

      Delete
    4. Handball is a different offence, so I would assume the new interpretation does not apply.

      Delete
  3. If Suarez did not hesitate to take the gamble (and won!) despite the red card, one can imagine how it will be for only yellow cards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would think, in the case of handling, the referee shouldnt even consider the attempt to play the ball. If it is called as handball, thst means the player didn't attempt to play the ball.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly my thought. In case of handballs, always red cards.

      Delete
  5. Off topic. Your opinion about this incredible situation (England, league 2): https://youtu.be/XBFkakbRoiY

    Btw, Mazic got injured during the match on Friday. No news so far about his injury, but the big question is whether he would be fit to observe 2nd leg Cl match.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Off topic. Your opinion about this incredible situation (England, league 2): https://youtu.be/XBFkakbRoiY

    Btw, Mazic got injured during the match on Friday. No news so far about his injury, but the big question is whether he would be fit to observe 2nd leg Cl match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What in the world is he thinking? Why? Why? Why? Never a need to stop half/match when ball is bouncing around in PA.

      Delete
  7. The example video you gave is a clear example of DOGSO. The defender went through the attacker in his "attempt" to play the ball. He has no possibility of playing the ball fairly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But after the new rules, it is only a yellow card, isn't it? (if you don't decide for SFP)
      As you say, he does attempt to play the ball and it is somehow possible, whether fairly or not doesn't matter now.

      Delete
    2. The possibility to play fairly is irrelevant for the new DOGSO. He has the possibility to play, period.

      Delete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger