Week in Review 26, by Bob & Ed: It's a draw

    A couple of posts ago, writing about U.S. Soccer's WiR 24, we agreed with Michael Kennedy's analysis of a DOGSO situation.  It has taken a long time for consistency to grow in MLS refereeing about this most contentious of decisions, when once upon a time, administrators in the professional league publicly stated that not all DOGSO incidents should result in a red card.

    Now, however, it seems that the doctor is re-infecting the patient after first curing him.  We refer to the analysis of WiR 26, where Michael's description is of a defender who pulls down a forward running towards the goal.  In his opinion the player should not have been sent off, but should have been punished with only a caution for a tactical foul.  We beg to differ, and in doing so urge you not to lose sight of the reason why the punishment of expulsion was introduced for this kind of foul.

    Michael contends that because there was another defender to the right of the infraction, this was not a denial of a goal-scoring opportunity.  In other words, one of the infamous "4Ds" was not literally satisfied: not more than one defender between the foul and the goal.

    

    Let's put ourselves in the mind of the defenders here.  The forward, running onto a great pass from his teammate behind him, has outrun his defender and is now inside him and in a foot-race with the defender on the right in the picture.  The defender nearest to him can see the forward, the ball and his own teammate and yet commits the foul to bring down the forward.  Why does he do this?

    You don't have to be an Arpad Csanadi¹ (tactical genius responsible for changing the game in the fifties and sixties) to figure out that the defender commits the foul because he knows that the forward has a good chance of continuing his run to outstrip the defence.  In other words, the foul is intended to deny him that opportunity.  Ergo, a DOGSO.  The 4Ds are guidelines for thinking referees, not tablets carved in stone brought down from on high.  If they were the latter, a forward on a breakaway who tries to go round the goalkeeper would never get the benefit of a DOGSO, because at some instant he would appear to be "going away from the goal".  But as we saw with Arshavin's goal against Swansea last week, a professional player can score from the most acute of angles, even with his left foot from out on the left wing.  See: http://blip.tv/arsenalfc/goal-arshavin-1-0-vs-swansea-5543053.

    Score one for us.

    The second incident in WiR 26 involves the ball striking the referee, unfortunately leading to a goal.  Would you believe that it wasn't so long ago that some powers-that-be in MLS advocated stopping play when the ball made contact with the official, even though we should know that the referee is equivalent to an inanimate goalpost or a corner-flag?  Obviously in contravention of the laws of the game, this was pointed out by one of us at the time, much to the consternation of those in charge of referee instruction, whose response was to fire the messenger.

    The referee in WiR 26 needs some coaching in positioning and in learning to stay out of space that players need, but nevertheless, his decision was correct.

    Score one for Michael.

¹ Author of the classic text translated from the Hungarian: "Soccer: Technique - Tactics - Coaching".

 

 

 

Comments

[OMG Not again]

As far as the written in stone 4 D's in the example it can be argued that they are in fact met as the second defender was a the most in line with the play going forward and at some distance from the forward and NOT in front of the forward. This rightly means that the forward has every advantage to go towards the goal un-impeded and therefore has a reasonable expectation of a goal scoring chance. I agree with you both. Red card.
Thanks.

[wykell]

I have to disagree somewhat with you on the first point. For one, we cannot assume to know what the defender was thinking - we can only apply the laws to what happens, not what the players intended. For the opposite reason that it's perfectly ok to give a straight red for a player who "accidentally" and instinctively throws their hand in front of a ball that is goal bound, the referee can never judge intent (unless the player is shouting something like "I'm going to kill you" as he lunges in on a tackle). Furthering that logic, it would only make sense to give a straight red card to anyone who fouled someone like Cristiano Ronaldo whenever he had 10 feet of space in front of him to shoot at 30 yards or less, as the defender "knows that the forward has a good chance of scoring from there, as he has many times before in open play." I agree with the -pirate code- 4D's being more of guidelines, but as referees we can't go around assigning intent to players.

(Further to this, the video doesn't show it, but I was at the field opposite the camera angle, and Camilo actually fouled Solli first by grabbing his shirt and using it to pull himself forward to get in front of him - but with TV or AR1 [GG, I think] unable to see that, we can't assign the foul to Camilo, even though he has a history of doing that - and was even called for it earlier in the match)

[Gil Weber]

In my opinion as the level of play and the skill of the players increases the referee should lean less, not more, on the 4Ds as clear **determining** factors for sending off (or not sending off) an opponent who unfairly challenges the opponent going in the general direction of the goal. The Arshavin goal Bob and Ed reference is a good example of a highly skilled player who can make something out of very little.

But Arshavin's goal pales by comparison to this one by Roberto Carlos while playing for Real Madrid. From a full run he scores from an impossible angle -- making something out of absolutely nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNs4w2k6qNo

Gabriel Batistuta routinely scored from way out on the periphery of the penalty area after rounding and being fouled by opposing goal keepers or last defenders.

While I'm certainly not advocating that we start deeming every attack by skilled players an obvious goal scoring opportunity with the result that the red cards start flying, I think it's important to emphasize that players do not have to be headed to the space between the goal posts for an opponent to be sent off for DOGSO-F.

As my friend Mike Goblet said so often, "Cogito ergo arbitro."

[Mac Bleakley]

Well, I finally disagree with you.

Jeez, look at how far out he is from the goal! He still has to beat a Defender and the keeper!

Are we now to take away the tactical foul, and lump every defensive foul as DOGSO?

As a defender, I try to take advantage of the LOTG, and take a tactical foul when needed. In the example given, I know that, as a defender, it is not a DOGSO situation, because my teammate,the defender in front(and on the side) has a clear line on the attacker, with my keeper as back up,too, so why not take the foul, and therefore take the pressure of my teammates to stop a DOGSO if he gets by me! ERGO, a foul to prevent a DOGSO from coming into play! That is what the defender is thinking! Everybody has a LOTG book. Even the players! This is not the 60's, dude!

I am not a policeman as a referee. I have no powers to arrest, just because I think the perp might be up to something. I gotta call it like the book says to. And I love the game,too. Both as a player and ref.

Mac: After all my years in the professional game, I am cynical about the motives of players, but Ed & I don't have the only key to the truth-box. It is always in "the opinion of the referee", but I will admit that I regarded my job as similar to a cop on the beat: keep the lawlessness off the streets. Cheers, Bob.

[Gil Weber]

Here's the Roberto Carlos link referenced above. Not picked up when I posted the original message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNs4w2k6qNo

[D.S.]

Mr. Evans, I am a long-time reader of your blog, and nearly always agree with your analyses. This time, however, I beg to differ. The defender denied the forward an opportunity to go towards goal, perhaps take a shot on frame, perhaps make a nice pass to his teammate who's behind the last defender, etc. The forward was not necessarily denied a *goal-scoring* opportunity, much less an *obvious* one. Just as forwards at the highest levels of play are very talented, so are the defenders, and one could argue that the last defender was well-positioned for a clean slide-tackle in this case. Finally, to match your excellent example of Arshavin's goal against Swansea, may I offer Fernando Torres' miss against Manchester United this past weekend? There's often many a slip between the last defender and the goal, and things are often less *obvious* than they seem.

D.S. After almost twenty years in the professional game, and many more years as a "naughty amateur" before that, I am unashamedly cynical about the motives of players. But this is like so many other situations on the field: it is "in the opinion of the referee". Ed and I are not the keepers of the truth-box, but we will always try to provoke you to defend your opinions. That is what instructors are for! Cheers, Bob.

[David Barra]

In Sunday's Premier League match between Chelsea and Man Utd, Nani was taken down in the box with only the keeper to beat. Why no DOSGO-F?
//
David: I dunno. I don't recall the incident. Would you have called it? That's what matters. Cheers, Bob.