Red card, really?

[soccer dude]

Being a ref myself I'm always defending refs but come on ref, is this really a red card for tugging a jersey? There are 2 other defenders clearly within playing distance of the ball. Check this youtube video out and see for yourself. This was a game changing call and if at all uncertain, you should never ever call a red card.

 

[espola]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[MWN]

Being a ref myself I'm always defending refs but come on ref, is this really a red card for tugging a jersey? There are 2 other defenders clearly within playing distance of the ball. Check this youtube video out and see for yourself. This was a game changing call and if at all uncertain, you should never ever call a red card.

The defenders were even or slightly behind the attacking player, the attacking player was moving towards goal. Explain why DOGSO doesn't apply?

 

[soccer dude]

How can you claim DOGSO when 2 defenders were even with the attacker (in addition to the one who fouled) ? If the fouler was out of the picture. the other 2 defenders have a clear shot to prevent the goal. The definition of DOGSO is "obvious" and this is not "obvious" right? This is a clear yellow card however since it was a foul in the act of trying to score.

 

[fantasyfutbol]

Being a ref myself I'm always defending refs but come on ref, is this really a red card for tugging a jersey? There are 2 other defenders clearly within playing distance of the ball. Check this youtube video out and see for yourself. This was a game changing call and if at all uncertain, you should never ever call a red card.

Think of it as a life lesson for the jersey tugger. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. But the parent of the jersey tugger probably won't take this opportunity to teach the jersey tugger a life lesson. The parent of the jersey tugger will probably teach the jersey tugger to blame the ref instead of accountability for individual action. The parent will probably say things like "really?", use extra words like "clearly", and "never ever" to redirect blame.

 

[coachrefparent]

All I see is a blurry mess. Will need to look on another device before I give the videographer a red card.

 

[espola]

Think of it as a life lesson for the jersey tugger. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. But the parent of the jersey tugger probably won't take this opportunity to teach the jersey tugger a life lesson. The parent of the jersey tugger will probably teach the jersey tugger to blame the ref instead of accountability for individual action. The parent will probably say things like "really?", use extra words like "clearly", and "never ever" to redirect blame.

Clearly.

 

[soccer dude]

I agree that it is a foul and that it is a yellow card. I said that above and would never teach my kids to do this. But that is not the point of this post. Let's stay on topic folks. Should it be a red card was the point. And yes, the parents and sideline of the jersey tugger all agreed with the foul, just not the red card.

 

[espola]

I agree that it is a foul and that it is a yellow card. I said that above and would never teach my kids to do this. But that is not the point of this post. Let's stay on topic folks. Should it be a red card was the point. And yes, the parents and sideline of the jersey tugger all agreed with the foul, just not the red card.

Red card, unless you can show a view with at least one defender other than the keeper between the fouled player and her line to the goal.

That's a tough call - only good refs would make it.

 

[coachrefparent]

Not sure why the OP is so insistent. The decision could go either way, and would be right as a yellow or red. I certainly didn't see any "uncertainty" in the referee's actions. Clear and decisive.

Interestingly, it could be 2 yellows and a send off in any event. #1 for foul, and #2 for kicking the ball away.

 

[Surfref]

Being a ref myself I'm always defending refs but come on ref, is this really a red card for tugging a jersey? There are 2 other defenders clearly within playing distance of the ball. Check this youtube video out and see for yourself. This was a game changing call and if at all uncertain, you should never ever call a red card.

Referees use the 4D’s criteria to determine DOGSO along with the skill level of the players. All DOGSO outside the penalty area are a Red Card, so this one would be a Red Card if it met criteria. After looking at the DOGSO criteria and knowing the skill level of ECNL players, I would say that DOGSO criteria could have been met and a Red Card issued.

Let’s look at the 4 D’s.
• Defenders: Not counting the player committing the foul, there is at most one defender between the foul and the goal. That other defender is generally the goalkeeper. The keeper committing a foul can be sent off for this offense as well.
• Distance to the ball: The attacker must be close enough to the ball to continue playing it at the time of the foul.
• Distance to the goal: The attacker must be close enough to the goal to have a legitimate chance to score. So being in or near the opponent’s penalty area is more likely to be an obvious goal-scoring opportunity than the attacker being in the team’s defensive half of the field.
• Direction: The attacker must be moving toward the opponent’s goal at the time of the foul, not toward a corner flag or away from the goal.

Let’s apply those to the play in the video.
Direction: the attacker was headed in the right direction, so criteria met. Distance to the goal: 2oish yards from the goal for an ECNL level player is well within shooting distance, so criteria met. This is the only one I would probably have to think hard about if I was on the field, since it would be at the edge of my distance criteria. Distance to the ball: the ball was at the attackers feet, so criteria met. Defenders: the only defender between the attacker and the goal is the the keeper. The other defenders are behind and to the attacker’s right at the time of the foul, so criteria met.

 

[timbuck]

That was a great fun and pass.
Not sure about the red or not.
What was the rest of the game like?
Had the referee given any other cards? Or verbal warnings?

 

[soccer dude]

It was a hard fought game. I only recall this 1 red and no warnings. Refs did a good job I thought. Was a clean, somewhat physical game. Slammers won 3-1.

 

[Surfref]

I finally got the opportunity to view the video on a full size screen. I probably would not have given a Red card. I did not realize that the foul occurred 30-35 yards from the goal, so the distance criteria probably would not have been met for me. Definitely a Yellow card. During the game the referee has to first determine that a foul was committed then run through all four DOGSO criteria, all within a second or less. Each referee has a slightly different threshold for the Distance to Goal criteria depending on the skill level of the players. Maybe the referee had seen this player take some long shots and thought the attacker was well within her shooting range.

 

[timbuck]

I finally got the opportunity to view the video on a full size screen. I probably would not have given a Red card. I did not realize that the foul occurred 30-35 yards from the goal, so the distance criteria probably would not have been met for me. Definitely a Yellow card. During the game the referee has to first determine that a foul was committed then run through all four DOGSO criteria, all within a second or less. Each referee has a slightly different threshold for the Distance to Goal criteria depending on the skill level of the players. Maybe the referee had seen this player take some long shots and thought the attacker was well within her shooting range.

I just watched on a bigger screen too. Still a bit blurry. Is it possible that the defender grabbed a handful of pony tail along with the jersey?
Otherwise, just looks like a standard foul. And since the player didn't fall, I wonder if advantage could even have been played here? There was another slammers player streaking down the left flank that was wide open.

 

[jsmaxwell]

Call looks a little tight to me. Whether she was in shooting "range" or not, its a low probability shot, and it sure looks like at least one of the other defenders was closing in on the line. OTOH, the call wasn't worth clipping the video, posting on the internet, etc.

 

[Paul Spacey]

I won't ref bash but the decision depends largely on your understanding of the game and this situation. If you've played the game, it is clear that the covering defender is going to get back to cut her off (due to the attacking players' first touch not being great), so it's not DOGSO. If you haven't played the game and/or don't fully understand the situation, you perhaps just see an attacker running toward goal and likely give a red. Again, I'm not ref bashing (I was one for a long time). All of that said, it is open to interpretation and opinions will vary, as they always do in these situations. The sensible (and fair IMO) option? Give a yellow. Kicking the ball away for a potential 2nd yellow? Hardly, it goes about 5 yards but again, an overly officious referee might see it differently.

The "yeahhh" and "wooooo" reaction to the red card made me laugh, then cringe. I always wonder why parents 'cheer' yellow and red cards in youth soccer.

 

[MWN]

How can you claim DOGSO when 2 defenders were even with the attacker (in addition to the one who fouled) ? If the fouler was out of the picture. the other 2 defenders have a clear shot to prevent the goal. The definition of DOGSO is "obvious" and this is not "obvious" right? This is a clear yellow card however since it was a foul in the act of trying to score.

I think others have explained this but I'll address it since you asked me.

In a nutshell no, you don't understand DOGSO and the considerations.

The 2 defenders that are "even" are not relevant under the Laws of the Game. As @Surfref stated, we look at the 4 d's per US Soccer's instructions (https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/03/17/13/23/obvious-goal-scoring-opportunity-denied-the-4-ds), which provide:

In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four elements must be present:

• Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul
• Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
• Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball
• Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed

The last 2 considerations are met. Attacker had ball at her feet and was moving in direction of opponents goal.

Number of Defenders:
"Not more than 1 defender between foul and goal."
Being "even" with the player is irrelevant. Being faster than the player and coming from the side (even or behind) is irrelevant. Have numbers (2, 3, 4 10) that are all even, faster and slightly behind is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is was there any other defenders BETWEEN the attacker and the goalkeeper (in this instance). If not, this element is satisfied.

I disagree with @Paul Spacey who relies on this statement "it is clear that the covering defender is going to get back to cut her off (due to the attacking players' first touch not being great)." This consideration would be improper under the letter of Law and considerations.

Because the other 2 defenders were not between the attacker and goal when fouled, they are not relevant.

Distance to Goal - the foul appears to have occurred 30 to 20 yards from goal, which is close enough in the mind of this referee given the skill of the players.

Red Card for DOGSO is within the realm of appropriateness.

 

[Surfref]

I think others have explained this but I'll address it since you asked me.

In a nutshell no, you don't understand DOGSO and the considerations.

The 2 defenders that are "even" are not relevant under the Laws of the Game. As @Surfref stated, we look at the 4 d's per US Soccer's instructions (https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/03/17/13/23/obvious-goal-scoring-opportunity-denied-the-4-ds), which provide:

In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four elements must be present:

• Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul
• Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
• Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball
• Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed

The last 2 considerations are met. Attacker had ball at her feet and was moving in direction of opponents goal.

Number of Defenders:
"Not more than 1 defender between foul and goal."
Being "even" with the player is irrelevant. Being faster than the player and coming from the side (even or behind) is irrelevant. Have numbers (2, 3, 4 10) that are all even, faster and slightly behind is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is was there any other defenders BETWEEN the attacker and the goalkeeper (in this instance). If not, this element is satisfied.

I disagree with @Paul Spacey who relies on this statement "it is clear that the covering defender is going to get back to cut her off (due to the attacking players' first touch not being great)." This consideration would be improper under the letter of Law and considerations.

Because the other 2 defenders were not between the attacker and goal when fouled, they are not relevant.

Distance to Goal - the foul appears to have occurred 30 to 20 yards from goal, which is close enough in the mind of this referee given the skill of the players.

Red Card for DOGSO is within the realm of appropriateness.

Your post is almost identical to mine (post #11). So, between the two of our posts everyone should fully understand the criteria for DOGSO and understand portions of the criteria such as distance can be “in the opinion of the Referee.” The foul initially occurs 35 yards from the goal, but the ref marked it 30 yards out. 30-35 yards from goal would probably not meet my distance criteria for DOGSO so I would give a Yellow card.

 

[Paul Spacey]

I think others have explained this but I'll address it since you asked me.

In a nutshell no, you don't understand DOGSO and the considerations.

The 2 defenders that are "even" are not relevant under the Laws of the Game. As @Surfref stated, we look at the 4 d's per US Soccer's instructions (https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/03/17/13/23/obvious-goal-scoring-opportunity-denied-the-4-ds), which provide:

In order for a player to be sent off for denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity," four elements must be present:

• Number of Defenders -- not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul
• Distance to goal -- the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
• Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to have continued playing the ball
• Direction of play -- the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed

The last 2 considerations are met. Attacker had ball at her feet and was moving in direction of opponents goal.

Number of Defenders:
"Not more than 1 defender between foul and goal."
Being "even" with the player is irrelevant. Being faster than the player and coming from the side (even or behind) is irrelevant. Have numbers (2, 3, 4 10) that are all even, faster and slightly behind is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is was there any other defenders BETWEEN the attacker and the goalkeeper (in this instance). If not, this element is satisfied.

I disagree with @Paul Spacey who relies on this statement "it is clear that the covering defender is going to get back to cut her off (due to the attacking players' first touch not being great)." This consideration would be improper under the letter of Law and considerations.

Because the other 2 defenders were not between the attacker and goal when fouled, they are not relevant.

Distance to Goal - the foul appears to have occurred 30 to 20 yards from goal, which is close enough in the mind of this referee given the skill of the players.

Red Card for DOGSO is within the realm of appropriateness.

I appreciate your explanation although just to be clear, I'm not coming at this from the angle of someone who doesn't understand the LOTG. I've been a referee for over 20 years and have officiated with hundreds of refs in both the UK and US, including professional and international teams.

Your points are all 'by the letter of law' which I understand and appreciate. As referees, we are allowed an element of discretion and opinion, otherwise we are robots. In my opinion, it would not be a red card based on the circumstances and I would have made the same decision in the live game at that speed, regardless of the replay we all watched. If you put the LOTG up in court and showed the video, you could argue a red card, sure. But you could equally argue a yellow.

I would suggest most experienced officials would give a yellow card in that situation but because it is not cut and dry, there will always be a difference of opinion. I respect yours.