Highlands 7 Covington Holy Cross 0

[bothways]

I stated that IFAB changed the way it looked at DOGSO a long time ago. Others have followed their lead. I think what's applicable to this high school situation is the guidance NFHS has provided. A player shall be cautioned (YC) when he/she commits a foul outside the penalty area in a DOGSO situation. And a player shall be cautioned (YC) when he/she commits a foul inside the penalty area, while not attempting to play the ball in a DOGSO situation. Mex's description of the foul and the fact that there was a PK, sounds like "a foul inside the penalty area, while not attempting to play the ball"... so YC. And therefore straight seems too harsh.

 

In addition, Mex doesn't even think it was a DOGSO situation to start with ... so straight Red seems harsh even before the change in the rules.

 

Foul, yellow card, and PK (if determined inside the box) seem appropriate.

 

So I was able to find the CHANGES to the NFHS rules though not the rule book itself.

 

They don’t state what you have posted. Matter of fact it’s the exact opposite. The actual wording is below my emphasis added. Original link here: https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-content/soccer-rules-changes-2018-19/

 

12-8-1f, 15 (NEW): 1. A player, coach or bench personnel shall be cautioned (yellow card) for:

 

f. unsporting conduct, including, but not limited to: 15. A player who commits an offense against an opponent within his/her team penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, if the offense was an attempt to play the ball.

 

12-8-2d3, 4 2. A player, coach or bench personnel shall be disqualified (red card) for: (NEW) d. committing serious foul play: 3. a player commits a foul, outside the penalty area, attempting to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, and the goal is not scored; or 4. a player commits a foul, inside the penalty area, while not attempting to play the ball, and the goal is not scored.

 

Rationale: This change addresses the issues of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) that occur in the game that places a player and team in double jeopardy when applying a penalty.

 

I’m not sure where you got your information but regardless of IFAB or NFHS they appear to be saying that fouls outside the area which are Dogso are still red. And fouls inside the area that are not a play on the ball are also still red. Hence why this play is red.

[MyOpin]

Mea Culpa ... I definitely read it wrong. Thanks for setting me straight. In the version on the NHFS website the 12-8-2d3 (calling for RC) was buried in the paragraph. It wasn't pulled out with its own header. It looked like all the subparts in that paragraph were under 12-8-1f, 15 (which called for YC).

 

So the only change in the DOGSO situation is that a foul occurring inside the box on a play with an attempt on the ball is yellow instead of red? But the same play outside the box is still red...smh.

 

 

So questions go back to Mex ... Was there any attempt to play the ball? Or straight pull down? And was it an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

[mexitucky]

I messaged the guy who filmed the game. Hopefully he will be able to get us a cut up of the play.

 

Full disclosure, the player that got fouled is my son, so I'm presenting this as objectively as anyone can since I'm taking the opposite side of the ref on this one.

[bothways]

I messaged the guy who filmed the game. Hopefully he will be able to get us a cut up of the play.

 

Full disclosure, the player that got fouled is my son, so I'm presenting this as objectively as anyone can since I'm taking the opposite side of the ref on this one.

That’s fair. And the unfortunate reality is that Dogso has an inherently subjective component, which it sounds like has been increased with the additional detail of determining an attempt to play the ball vs not an attempt to play the ball.

 

We can watch the play and determine in the situations WE wouldn’t have given a red card but if we can’t point to a clear and obvious error I think it all comes back to players needing to think about their actions. Don’t put the Referee on the spot to force them to make these calls unless you are willing to take the consequences if they decide against you.

[mexitucky]

For what it's worth, my friend w/ the film agreed w/ you. Ha ha. Gotta love eye witness accounts.

[bothways]

Mea Culpa ... I definitely read it wrong. Thanks for setting me straight. In the version on the NHFS website the 12-8-2d3 (calling for RC) was buried in the paragraph. It wasn't pulled out with its own header. It looked like all the subparts in that paragraph were under 12-8-1f, 15 (which called for YC).

 

So the only change in the DOGSO situation is that a foul occurring inside the box on a play with an attempt on the ball is yellow instead of red? But the same play outside the box is still red...smh.

 

 

So questions go back to Mex ... Was there any attempt to play the ball? Or straight pull down? And was it an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

It took me a while of looking at it to see it as well. If the actual rule book is set up the same way then there is little doubt how refs coaches and players can be ignorant to details like this.

 

I think this fits with the IFAB and their desire to remove the “triple punishment” though. Because if the foul isn’t in the Box then we really don’t have three punishments. It’s only two at most.

 

Interestingly I was talking to a Referee friend of mine and he said that the sitting out a game thing isn’t really a requirement. That is determined by the league. So the question sort of becomes, why not remove that part rather than add an additional thing for the referees to have to worry about.

[bothways]

For what it's worth, my friend w/ the film agreed w/ you. Ha ha. Gotta love eye witness accounts.

 

Indeed.