DOGSO or Serious Foul Play? Does it Matter? (Ed & Bob)

     Towards the end of the game between Fulham and Blackburn in the EPL last week we witnessed a frightful collision between Mark Schwarzer (Fulham goalkeeper) and David Hoilett (Blackburn striker).  The forward was chasing a high ball into the penalty-area and had jumped to head it onward from four yards outside the box.  Meanwhile Schwarzer came charging out of his goal and left the penalty-area to clear the danger, presumably by heading away.  The two players collided at something like 35 or more miles-per-hour and ended up prostrate.  Hoilett did not get up.

 

    He was seriously injured, treated for more than six minutes by medical staff, before being carried off with a neck-brace and on a stretcher to have four stitches put in a cut on his head.  The goalkeeper was more fortunate, soon on his feet, and apparently none the worse for wear.  So what is the decision that the referee has to make?

     Question Number One: Did the long period of treatment, the necessity of bracing the head and then the subsequent stitching demonstrate that the challenge was delivered with excessive force from the goalkeeper ?

    Question Number Two: Did the contact prevent the forward from nodding the ball on, to run onto and deliver into the goal ?

     It goes without saying that an answer of "Yes" to either of those questions indicates that the goalkeeper should have been sent off the field.  The referee of the game, Howard Webb, had been left a long way back from this clearance, arrived at the scene of the collision after a short interval, blew his whistle for the foul and showed only the yellow card to the Fulham goalkeeper.  We are at a loss to understand why Mr. Webb only showed the yellow card in this incident.  (In this respect it was reminiscent of the incident in the 2010 World Cup final when Mr. Webb showed only the yellow card to deJong of Holland after he had kicked an opponent, Alonso, karate-style, studs first into the chest.)  As it was nothing came of Blackburn's free kick.

     We could understand if Mr. Webb had decided that it was an honest collision between two players attempting to win a ball in the air and had not whistled for the foul.  But since he did whistle for the foul he should have shown a red card and not the yellow one. Some people may argue that this was not a true DOGSO because the forward did actually head the ball towards goal before he was knocked down.  But if you are one of those, question number one (above) should be nagging at you in your mind.  And remind yourself that the foul was committed by a goalkeeper who had left the penalty area, could no longer use his hands legally to play the ball and consequently had to resort to some other means of preventing the attack.  We can infer a motive that condemns his actions.

    Consider the options open to a goalkeeper and what his motivations might be.  In this match the score was 1-1 and the game was in added time with only 1 or 2 minutes remaining.  Clearly if the forward had not been stopped he probably would have scored and that would have almost certainly secured (an away) victory for his team.  In committing the foul the goalkeeper made sure that this would not happen.  He should have paid the ultimate penalty and been sent off especially since this occurred outside the penalty area.  As a result Fulham brought all of their players back to form a defensive wall in an attempt to prevent Blackburn from scoring.  They did not score from the free kick and so his tactic was successful.

    Yes, we know that we cannot read a player's mind.  But the keeper's action here allow us a peek inside his head, and after thirty-five years of being in the middle of the professional game, that peek tells us motive.

Comments

[Joshua]

Having not seen the game but only your description and the two small pics. I would have to say, no foul. It is unfortunate that the player got injured but they both look like they are trying to play the ball, tilt of the head and body positioning. I highly doubt the keep is thinking "I will use my head as a battering ram". If Webb were to have not called a foul would you agree with that or still want the SFP/DOGSO?//////

Joshua: Somewhere along the way, you seem to have missed the meaning of "careless" and "reckless", let alone "excessive force", all three of which apply to this incident. Remember that "intent" no longer applies when trying to judge a foul. If one player kicks another, whether he intended to or no, it IS a foul. Whether the referee calls it is another matter (IBD 8). This WAS a foul. Cheers, Bob.

[Leigh W. Davis]

When I saw this I thought Schumacher, Battiston, & Corver. By comparison, Mr. Webb's cautioning of Schwarzer was brilliant! He took some disciplinary action! Wait. Nevermind. Mr. Corver must have decided that Schumacher's leap at Battiston after Battiston had played the ball made for "an honest collision between two players attempting to win a ball in the air[.]" Therefore, even calling a foul on Schumacher would have been wrong.

In all seriousness, perhaps Mr. Webb was far enough away from the play or didn't have as good an angle as he might have wanted to show red. But he's also a highly experienced official whom we might expect to be able to tell certain things from the physical reactions as you suggest.

LWD

[Gil Weber]

1982 World Cup. France vs Germany.

Harald Schumacker (Germany's GK) charges out and simply obliterates France's Patrice Batiston.

Nowhere near getting the ball, no foul called, no card given.

What were the referee and lead AR looking at?

See this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3byTNRoxujo

Yikes. :o(

We simply have to be better than that travesty or the incident Bob describes.

[marian]

I agree with Joshua. I don't consider the challenge unfair. Schwarzer clearly attempts the ball, doesn't uses elbows. Both players clash with heads so the injury is unfortunate. however, it don't see foul there.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Marian:
I don't know how to respond, because it seems to me that you, like Joshua, have completely missed the point of putting the words "careless" and "reckless" and "excessive force" into the law. A goalkeeper cannot run out of his penalty-area and flatten an opponent with a full-body smash that opens up his scalp. YOU HAVE TO PENALIZE SUCH THINGS. At the very least it is reckless. "ATTEMPTING THE BALL" DOES NOT EXCUSE IT. Best wishes, Bob.

[Gil Weber]

Bob, it appears that some readers have forgotten that the word "intent" was removed from Law 12 except as it applies to handling. That is, it's no longer intentionally tripping an opponent that's a foul, or intentionally kicking an opponent that's a foul. The fact that the opponent was tripped (or pushed, held, or whatever) makes it a foul by definition.

It's then up to the referee to decide if it's trivial or meaningful. If trivial then play continues. If it's meaningful the referee will blow the whistle or apply advantage.

So an argument that the GK was attempting to play the ball does not negate the fact that the challenge by definition was a foul.

Once an action is identified as a foul the more critical decision for the referee is to decide if the action rises to the level of misconduct -- a caution and yellow card or send off and red card.

[Joe McHugh]

Hi I actually watched this game live. When I saw the challenge first I did not react with a 'He has to go' view. When I watched the replay that view was confirmed to me with both players making a genuine attempt to win the ball. Schwarzer has only eyes for the ball and IMO it was an unfortunate coming together. Many times both player get up, dust each other off and play continues with a free kick and a caution to the 'late' player. Also refs in PL build up an opinion on players and their behaviour. Schwarzer would not be seen as a 'dirty' player and perhaps given the benefit of any doubt. The other interesting reaction is that of the players. None confronted the GK in a negative fashion as they would do on what would be seen as a cynical challenge. Finally had Schwarzer got there first and the Blackburn player made contact with him that would IMO have been a DFK and a caution.

[John Douglas]

Interesting thoughts shared so far. So clearly when a player slides and tackles for the ball, clearly wins the ball (without endangering the opponent) and then the opponent trips over his leg, you would suggest since he tripped the player he committed a foul? Certainly there are fair challenges that occur in a game where the result is a trip, a charge, a kick, even a "strike" - that are not judged as a trifling foul, and by all competent referees, are not whistled a foul at all.

I haven't seen the entire clip. The two pictures you post suggest to me there was no foul here, only an unlucky outcome from two players giving it their all. The ball is clearly in an acceptable area to be played in the fashion that both players attempted to play it, and without having seen the live action/been there to see where the keeper was looking, I suggest by your picture that the keeper made every effort to legally play the ball and whatever the result was an unfortunate accident - the result of two professional athletes in a contact sport doing their jobs.

I have a feeling that Howard Webb brings out a yellow card only because he felt he had to do "something" but that he potentially felt that this was a fair challenge where one guy got more unlucky than the other. Had the goalkeeper taken the brunt of the injury and the attacker gotten up on short order, yet it was the exact same play - do you suggest the attacker would be sent off for SFP?

[Rich Vilalobos]

So the GK committed a tactical foul and was only guilty of unsporting behavior? Or maybe the GK was guilty of handling the ball outside the PK area? Howard Webb is a joke, he obviously didn't learn anything from his horrible World Cup performance. I use his picture in my clinics to show what a referee, who lacks the courage to issue a red card, looks like.