Home Laws Advice Fitness SiteMap Links Set Pieces Discuss Search corshamref.org.uk   

The aim of this page is to describe what an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is. And how to deal with incidents.

What is an obvious Goal-scoring Opportunity?        Go back to the top of this page

Denying and obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity - commonly known in its abbreviated form as DOGSO

Law 12 states that a player should be sent off for:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area.

or

• denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick. 

Denying a goal or a goal-scoring opportunity
There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area.

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent's handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:

• the distance between the offence and the goal
• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
• the direction of the play
• the location and number of defenders
• the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick

The two types of obvious goal scoring opportunities that can be denied are:

(a) A defender (not the defending goalkeeper) who deliberately handles the ball and prevents an obvious goal. This normally covers the situation where following a shot on goal, a defender standing in front (or very near) of the goal stops the ball from entering the goal by handling it.

(b) When an attacker is fouled on his way towards goal, (including when a defender deliberately handles the ball to prevent the progress of the attacker towards goal), there are a number of factors that the Referee will need to take into consideration when deciding if the chance was an obvious goal scoring opportunity or not.

A Referee must answer YES to all of the following questions - before deciding that it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity or not. The Referee is the only person who can decide whether a goal scoring opportunity was obvious or not.

(a) Does the area between the attacker and the goal have fewer than two nearby defending players who are able to intervene, between the attacker and the goal?

(b) Was the attacker running directly towards the goal? (and not away from the goal at an angle - for example - obliquely towards the corner flag).

(c) Is the ball at a reasonable distance to enable the attacker to have reached the ball to play it?

(d) Was the foul committed near the goal? (the farther from goal, the less likely it is that an obvious goal scoring opportunity existed).

(e) Did the attacker have a reasonable chance for a shot towards goal, or to make progress towards the goal without being challenged by another outfield defender?

(f) Was the ball still in play when the foul was committed? (for example, did the Assistant Referee flag for offside just before the foul was committed).

(g) Was there enough match time remaining on the Referees watch, for the attacker to have covered the distance to enable a goal to be scored or attempted?

The further the distance is away from the goal, the less obvious it becomes when younger players are involved. For example - a seven year-old girl fouled 50 yards from the goal is not likely to have been an obvious goal scoring opportunity - because it's probably too far out to consider it to be a reasonable scoring/shooting opportunity.

A defender successfully turning an attacker, so he is heading obliquely across the field (and not now directly towards goal), and then pulls him down - is not an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

If a defender obstructs (impedes) an attacker, and by doing so, the obstruction denies the attacker an obvious goal scoring opportunity - the defender should still be sent off. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity involves any offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick - and this includes obstruction (impedance) where the restart is always an indirect free kick and never a penalty kick.

One way for you as a Referee to monitor an oncoming possible denial of a goal scoring opportunity, is whilst the attacking player is making his way towards the opponents goal, think in your mind, "yellow, yellow, red, red, yellow" to correspond with the varying directions that the attacker is moving with the ball towards the goal (or not towards the goal?). Think "yellow" when the attacker is moving away from goal, and think "Red" when he is moving directly towards the goal. If a foul is then committed on the attacker, and he is denied a clear goal scoring opportunity - the Referee will have already made his mind up to either send-off the perpetrator because the attacker was moving towards goal, or to just possibly caution him, because the attacker was moving away from goal.

When a goalkeeper handles the ball whilst in his own penalty area, in violation of the laws, the punishment is an indirect free kick and not a penalty kick (for example, when he handles the ball after receiving it directly from a colleague taking a throw-in).

Law 12. states...denies the opposing team a goal or an  obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to the keeper within his own penalty area).

Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area, he can not therefore be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by illegal use of his hands in his own penalty area. (The goalkeeper can of course be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by other fouls, or if he stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball outside of his penalty area).

Note, the FIFA MEMORANDUM issued in 1991 stated:

Interpretation of Law XII, IBD 15

2. Criteria for judging whether a goal-scoring opportunity is imminent:

a. Attacking player moving DIRECTLY toward the opponent's goal.

b. There were fewer than two opponents in a position to defend against the attack. (see below*)

c. The incident was close enough to the opponent's goal to be considered a goal scoring opportunity.

* A foul is committed on an attacking player (for example just outside of the penalty area):

When the goalkeeper is the person who commits the foul:

(a) If there are two or more defenders near the goal, then it is NOT an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

(b) If there is only one defender near the goal, then it IS an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

When a defender (not the goalkeeper) is the person who commits the foul:

(c) If there is only one defender AND the goalkeeper near the goal (i.e. 2 or more players), then it is NOT an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

(d) If there is only one defender near the goal, then it IS an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

(e) If there is only the goalkeeper near the goal, then it IS an OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity.

Further considerations: 

The wording in Law 12 describing the types of DOGSO to be punished, do not cover all possible scenarios. For example, a 2004 FIFA PowerPoint slide showed the following information.

Denying a Gaol, or a Gaol Scoring Opportunity:
It is not necessarily that the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity be a direct free kick foul

• It could be an indirect free kick foul (dangerous play)
• It could also be misconduct
  • Example: Goalkeeper bends the crossbar down far enough that the ball does not go in the net 
  • Example: A defender shouts at and distracts an attacker who is in the process of making a shot on goal
  • Example: A substitute illegally enters the field and trips an attacker who has a clear shot on goal
  • Example: A Defender uses the shoulders of a team-mate to lift himself higher to head the ball away

Goal-scoring Diagrams:                        Go back to the top of this page

Why the 'last man' does not always see red?
By Graham Poll ex-Premiership Referee 20 Jan 06

"He had to go...he was the last man..."

How many times do we hear commentators say this when a forward is brought down by a defender? It has become one of the biggest myths in football - that the so-called last defender "had to go" after making a foul challenge. The fact that a defender may be the last man is NOT the deciding factor in whether a player has been denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

A clear example of this was in the thrilling FA Cup tie between Luton Town and Liverpool when the visitors were awarded a penalty-kick.

In the post-match analysis the decision was reviewed from every possible angle and the pundits agreed that the referee, Mark Clattenburg, was 100 per cent correct to award a penalty-kick as the Luton defender had pushed Steven Gerrard from behind as he tried to reach a cross. Furthermore, the experts were surprised that the defender chose to push Gerrard as he was "highly unlikely to reach the ball". The final question then posed was why the defender, who was clearly "the last man" had not been shown a red card?

The answer comes in the highly accurate analysis - as Gerrard was unlikely to have reached the cross it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

There was a virtually identical situation at Highbury last month when Arsenal beat Portsmouth and while attempting to reach a cross Jose Antonio Reyes was pushed by a defender. Again a penalty was awarded and again no red card was shown as the attacker was not OBVIOUSLY going to reach the ball. These are two recent examples of consistent application of law, which is always desirable, and hopefully this relatively simple explanation helps clarify a seemingly difficult concept.

Referees consider a number of criteria when faced with the question of the denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The law requires the forward to be moving towards the opponents' goal - not just the penalty area - and that is obviously fundamental in our decision-making process. The other criteria are the possibility to control the ball, the position of the attacker, his direction of movement as well as that of the ball, the distance to the goal-line and the position of the defenders and or goalkeeper.

Therefore, the referee asks himself: "Was the attack very likely to produce a goal had it not been stopped by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick?" It is vital that we look for the PROBABILITY of a goal and not the POSSIBILITY of a goal. But nowhere in law is the phrase "the last man" mentioned.

There is often a clue in the actions of the attacker as, in my opinion, a player offered a clear and obvious chance to score a goal or take a penalty-kick will prefer the first option. Only if he does not believe he has an obvious chance of scoring does a penalty seem the better option.

In some situations judging whether a defender or a goalkeeper has played the ball rather than the opponent is difficult. A clear indication is often when the ball does not change direction and continues its path towards goal. 

Questions and Answers:                            Go back to the top of this page

Question 1: During a game, a defending player had left the field of play to receive treatment. Whilst he was outside of the field of play and very near his goal line, he deliberately puts a foot inside his penalty area and purposefully trips an attacking opponent who is inside the defender's penalty area. What action should the Referee take?

Answer 1: By putting his foot back inside the field of play, the defender has actually re-entered the field of play and has therefore placed himself back under the full jurisdiction of the Referee and the Laws of the Game - the defender will be treated as if he is fully on the field of play. The Referee should caution the defender for unsporting behaviour and award a penalty kick to the attacking team. If the tripping action took place outside of the penalty area, then a direct free kick should be awarded to the attacking team. If the tripping action prevented a goal scoring opportunity, the defender should be sent-off for preventing the goal scoring opportunity.

Question 3: If when diving to gather the ball, a goalkeeper inadvertently slides towards the edge of his penalty area and his hands which are still holding the ball travel outside of the penalty area, what action should the Referee take?

Answer 3: The Referee should stop play and award a direct free kick to the attacking team. If the Referee believes that this action by the goalkeeper prevented an opponent from having a clear goal scoring opportunity, then the goalkeeper should be sent-off the field of play.

Question 4: If whilst challenging for the ball, a defender (not the goalkeeper) standing just outside his own penalty area, stretches his arm inside the penalty area and deliberately handles the ball within his penalty area - what action should the Referee take?

Answer 4: The Referee should stop play and award a penalty kick to the attacking team. If the Referee believes that this action by the defender prevented an attacker from having a clear goal scoring opportunity, then the defender should also be sent-off the field of play.

Question 5: A goalkeeper who has released the ball at his feet, purposefully picks it up again to prevent an oncoming nearby challenging attacker gaining possession and shooting towards goal. Should the Referee Send off the goalkeeper for denying a goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) and restart with an indirect free kick, or should the Referee just give the goalkeeper a caution and restart with an indirect free kick for touching the ball a second time after he has released it.

Answer 5: Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) was designed to punish players committing fouls against opponents. In the question above, the goalkeeper commits the infringement (on himself) of touching the ball a second time after he has released it.  As the ball was clearly in control of the goalkeeper and not the oncoming attacking player, it is not deemed to be a DOGSO offence. An indirect free kick should be awarded. The additional punishment of a caution is not automatic but can be considered.

The only exception to a DOGSO offence committed on oneself, but against the opposing team, is when a player denies the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball. But this does not include when a goalkeeper handles the ball in his penalty area after if has been thrown or deliberately passed to him directly by a colleague (or when he picks it up a second time having already released it) - these are indirect free kick offences and not DOGSO offences.

(For example: A defender deliberately plays the ball back to his goalkeeper. An attacking player makes a play for the ball, but before he gains possession, the goalkeeper dives and collects the ball in his arms. The restart is an indirect free kick, and a possible caution for the goalkeeper - but no sending off.)

When a goalkeeper handles the ball whilst in his own penalty area, in violation of the laws as in the above question, the punishment is an indirect free kick and not a penalty kick. Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area, he can not therefore be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by illegal use of his hands in his own penalty area. (The goalkeeper can of course be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by other fouls, or if he stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball outside of his penalty area).

Denying a goal scoring opportunity was designed to punish players committing fouls on opponents. The scenarios discussed here, are infringements - but they are not committed against an opponent. The goalkeeper commits them on himself!

Question 6: In the cases when a goalkeeper illegally handles the ball outside of his own penalty area thus denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, should compassion be used by Referees in a youth contest -  i.e. can the Referee ignore the first occurrence of this offence and just teach the 'goalkeeper about the Law?

Answer 6: Although the sentiments above are understandable, there are many factors that make the statement very complex to apply fairly.

For example, at what age would you start applying the Law correctly?
What action would you take in a mixed-age team - and how would you know the ages of each player?
What would you do as a Referee say, if you failed top apply the Law to a 16 year old goalkeeper playing in a youth team on a Saturday - and the same player repeated a similar offence whilst he was playing for an adult Sunday team the next day.

By not applying the Law correctly, young players will expect to be treated the same when they get older - and if they are not, will undoubtedly protest to the Referee. Albeit that some leniency and understanding must be show during throw-ins and kick-offs when very young players are concerned - the goal scoring opportunity is a serious offence that can immediately effect the result of a game - and should therefore always be penalised properly.

Ignoring such incidents will inevitably lead to serious problems with astute parents and coaches.

Compassion in Youth games is a two edged sword that the Referee needs to use very very carefully - it relies on the goodwill of the coaches, managers, players, parents and spectators.
And goodwill can turn nasty in an instance.

As a general rule, goal scoring opportunities should be penalised properly at all ages - else trouble is surely waiting around the next corner.

When a goalkeeper handles the ball whilst in his own penalty area, in violation of the laws, the punishment is an indirect free kick and not a penalty kick (for example, when he handles the ball after receiving it directly from a colleague taking a throw-in).

Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area, he can not therefore be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by illegal use of his hands in his own penalty area. (The goalkeeper can of course be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by other fouls, or if he stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball outside of his penalty area).

Many thanks to Karl Arps - first year licensed referee in the U.S. for this interesting question.

Question 7: An attacking player breaks away with the ball with only the goalkeeper between him and the goal. At about 30 yards out the last defender (besides the goalkeeper) realises he is beat and grabs the attacking players shirt. The attacker breaks free (still in front of the defender by less than a yard). The Referee signals "Advantage, play on". At 15 -18 yards from the goal, the attacker shoots wide of the of the goal. Should the Referee call play back and award a direct free kick for the original offence?

Answer 7: If a Referee allows advantage following an offence, and the attacker subsequently takes a shot on goal and misses the goal (or the goalkeeper saves it), the Referee should not award that attacking team a free kick (or penalty) for the original offence. This would be tantamount to offering the attacking team two advantages (chances to score) and this would not be fair, and is against the 'spirit of the game'. As the defending player has not prevented a goal scoring opportunity (because the attacker did shoot towards goal) the defender should not be sent-off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Nevertheless, the defender should be cautioned for unsporting behaviour.

If the Referee decides to stop play when the original offence occurs, or if advantage does not accrue after 2 to 3 seconds (e.g. because the shirt pulling made the attacker fall over) the defending player should be send from the field of play for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

In this question, the Referee can do one of two things.

1. Apply advantage and if the attacking player attempts a shot on goal, caution the defending player (irrespective of whether a gaol is scored or not) and allow play to continue.

2. Stop play for the original offence (or if advantage does not accrue within 2 to 3 seconds. Send the defending player off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity and restart with a direct free kick to the attacking team where the offence occurred 30 yards away from the goal.

Question 8: An attacking player is running with the ball towards his opponents’ goal. The defending goalkeeper rushes out of his penalty area and impedes the oncoming attacking player. The Referee correctly awards an indirect free kick (outside the penalty area) to the attacking team. The attacking player sees that the goalkeeper is nowhere near his goal, and takes the indirect kick quickly by kicking the ball towards the goal. A defending player, who is the only player within the goal area, anticipates the kick, and handles the ball on the goal line, thus preventing the ball from entering the goal. Has the defending player denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball? And what action should the Referee take against the defending player?

Answer 8: The Referee should caution the defending player for deliberately handling the ball, and award a penalty kick to the attacking team. The defending player did not deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity, because a goal cannot be scored directly from an indirect free kick. The ball needs to touch another player before it enters the goal. Had the ball entered the goal directly without any interference, then a goal kick should be awarded to the defending team.

If the there was another on-side attacking player who was going to head the ball into the goal, then the defender who handled the ball may have denied the attacking player an obvious goal scoring opportunity. If this were so, then the Referee would be justified in sending off the defending player for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball.

Question 9: If a player commits a serious foul play tackle on an opponent at the same time as denying that opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity – can the Referee issue two red cards. One for denying a goal-scoring opportunity and another for serious foul play?

Answer 9: When you issue a red card against a player who denies a goal-scoring opportunity, the offence is normally "denying a goal-scoring opportunity" and not the foul (or the strength or type of the foul) itself.

It is however, possible, for a player to commit a ‘leg-breaking’ tackle, that on its own would warrant a red card – at the same time as denying the opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity. But only one red card is issued for serious foul play (the more serious offence). (See Law 5 "the Referee punishes the more serious offence when a player commits more than one offence at the same time.") 

Question 10a: An attacking player is running with the ball towards his opponents’ goal - and has just passed the second last defender who "YELLS" at the attacking player, causing him to trip and fall over. The Referee stops play. Should the Referee send off the defender for "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" or not?

Answer 10a: Even though this is a very unlikely scenario to happen in real life, Law 12 clearly states that it is a sending-off offence if a player "denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick." There is no ruling in the Laws to say that the offence MUST involve physical contact.  An ‘offence’ can include both physical contact and/or verbal attacks. And both are punishable by the award of a free kick.

If "yelling" at an opponent, denies that opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, it can be deemed by the Referee to be an unsporting conduct offence "punishable by a free kick". Therefore, if the Referee stops play to issue a caution, for the "yelling", he then needs to punish (in accordance with Law 5) the more serious offence committed at the same time, of "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity" – and the punishment elevated to a red card sending-off instead. The restart is an Indirect Free Kick.

Notwithstanding the advice using Law shown above – it must not be forgotten, that the ‘denying a goal-scoring opportunity offence’, was clearly originally brought in to deal with those physical offences that were not being punished properly at that time. In most cases, if the attacking player stays on his feet, the Referee is more likely to apply advantage than to stop play in the shouting scenario mentioned in this question. Verbal denying of goal-scoring opportunities is more of a theory scenario, and very unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, like most things in life, it is remotely possible!

Question 10b: The referee drops his spare whistle during the game. A red-team player picks it up. A few minutes later, a blue-team opponent has the ball and an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The red player who found the whistle [and is now defending] blows it! The attacking blue player and the game come to a halt. What should the referee do? If the game is ‘stopped’ how should it be restarted?

Answer 10b: To simplify the answer to this question, consider a similar interference of play, when a defending player loudly shouts out something that distracts an attacking player. Blowing the whistle is no different. They are both sounds purposefully made in an attempt to illegally distract opponents.

The ‘denying a goal-scoring opportunity offence’, was clearly originally brought in to deal with those physical offences that were not being punished properly at that time. In most cases, if the attacking player stays on his feet, the Referee is more likely to apply advantage than to stop play. But in this question, because the Blue player came to a halt, when he thought that it was the Referee who had blown the whistle - the Referee should (officially) stop play - either by blowing his spare whistle, or by shouting out "STOP" if his spare whistle is not readily accessible."

If "a player's illegal blowing of the whistle" denies an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, it can be deemed by the Referee to be an 'unsporting conduct', cautionable offence" punishable by an indirect free kick". The perpetrator has clearly cheated, by impersonating the Referee, knowing that his action would benefit his team and prevent a possible goal being scored against them.

The Law therefore, allows the Referee to stop play to issue a caution, for the act of " unsporting conduct". The Referee can then punish (in accordance with Law 5) the more serious offence committed at the same time, of "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity" – and the punishment elevated from a caution to a red card sending-off instead. The restart is an Indirect Free Kick taken from where the (whistle blowing) incident occurred.

Question 11a: What action should the Referee take if a defending player throws an object at the ball, thus preventing the ball from entering the goal?

Answer 11a: This should be treated as an extension of the player's arm, whereupon he should be dismissed, and a penalty kick awarded if the offence was committed in that player's penalty area.
(Source The Instructions &Publications Committee answer via the Referees' Association Magazine 'The Football Referee' Dec 2001 page 2)

To take this scenario even further:

Question 11b: What action should the Referee take if a goalkeeper inside his own penalty area throws an object at the ball, thus preventing the ball from entering the goal?

Answer 11b: This can also be treated as an extension of the goalkeeper's arm; but because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball inside his own penalty area, he cannot be dismissed for preventing an obvious goal scoring opportunity by ('so called') handling the ball. Nevertheless, because this is an act of unsporting behaviour, Law 12 allows the Referee to stop play, caution the goalkeeper, and award an indirect free kick to the attacking team. (WebMaster.)

 Go back to the top of this page

Question 12: In the penalty area, the Referee stops play to give the goalkeeper a yellow card for dissent. This requires a restart by the award of an indirect free kick.
Law 12 (sending-off offences, states that a red card is issued for ANY player that denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an offence punishable by a free kick. As dissent is punishable by a free kick. So should the goalkeeper always be sent-off?

Answer 12: No.

(a): If the goalkeeper commits an indirect free kick offence (for example - impedance) in his penalty area against an opponent (thus preventing that opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity) then the goalkeeper should be sent-off.

(b): If the goalkeeper commits an indirect free kick offence against anyone else (for example, thumping a team-mate or showing dissent to the Referee etc.) - then the offence is not committed against an opponent, and would therefore have nothing to do with denying an opponent a goal-scoring opportunity.

The crux of this understanding, is that for a player to be sent-off for denying a goal-scoring opportunity, the offence punishable by a free kick, must be committed against an opponent.

ADVANTAGE FOLLOWING A DOGSO (Denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity). 

Question 13: A defender, denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, fouls a first attacker. However, the ball goes to a second attacker upon the foul, the Referee applies the advantage, and the second attacker shoots and scores. The questions that come to mind are:

Question (a): Does the original misconduct by the defender get resolved since the goal was scored? In other words, should the original misconduct - denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) - be disciplined with a sending off?
(Answer a: Award a goal and caution the defender for unsporting behaviour, as in resulting play a goal was scored and the denial not effective.)

Question (b): As a follow on, if the attacker shoots and a goal was not scored (advantage did not materialise), should the referee allow play to continue, but send off the defender at the next natural stoppage?
(Answer b: If the advantage is wasted then play should not be halted to penalise the original offence. Again the defender should be cautioned for unsporting behaviour at the next suitable moment.)

Question (c): If the scenario only involves one attacker (for example - a defender, denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, fouls an attacker. However, the attacker manages to stay on his feet. Upon the foul, the referee applies the advantage, and the attacker shoots and scores (or does not score). Is the same principle applied, and should the defender be sent off at the first opportunity?
(Answer c: A goal is scored, so it was not denied, and the defender would not be dismissed. The use of the advantage clause does not absolve the referee from the responsibility of dealing with the offender, who would again be cautioned depending on the severity of the offence.)

Many thanks to our Referees' Association Instructional and Publications Committee here in England for the answers (a, b and c above) on 17 November 03. I will add a last thought taken from the FA publication 'Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game' (page 10): 

"If an offence is going to result in a sending-off, then it might be wiser not to allow advantage, thus reducing the risk of further misconduct."

Note from WebMaster: If the Referee applies advantage in any of the three scenarios above, the original misconduct of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) - should therefore not be disciplined with a sending off.

Question 14: An attacker is seen running with the ball towards his opponent's goal just inside the opponent's penalty area. A defender is running very close behind the attacker. In the motion of running, their legs get tangled up - the attacker falls down in a heap. Is this a penalty or not?

Answer 14: This is a difficult decision for the Referee to make. It all depends on whether or not the Referee deems this action to have been: committed accidentally whilst both players were solely intent on gaining possession the ball, innocently repositioning themselves - or purposefully committed by the defender to prevent the attacker moving further towards goal. If the Referee believes that the collision was deliberately orchestrated by the defender, then a penalty kick (or a direct free kick if occurring outside of the penalty area) should be awarded to the attacking team - if the Referee believes that the purposeful action by the defender prevented the attacker from having a clear goal scoring opportunity, then the defender should be sent-off the field of play.

If the Referee deems that the incident was purely accidental, then he should allow play to continue. The Referee should be aware that when he takes the action to allow play to continue, he will undoubtedly receive a disparaging comment or two from the attacking player and his colleagues. The Referee should penalise any dissenting comments accordingly. During incidents of these types, Referees are advised to quickly run away from the near vicinity - this prevents players 'having a go'. If the Referee is not near - then players will very often not bother too much about moaning.

If the incident is purposefully done by a defender outside of the penalty area, the Referee can allow advantage if the attacker manages to stay on his feet with the ball after the collision and carries on unaffected towards the goal - the defending team should not be given the advantage of having the attacking play stopped, and brought back for a free kick. The Referee can also consider cautioning the defender (or sending him off if the action prevented the attacker from having a clear goal scoring opportunity). The Referee will have to consider very carefully, when awarding advantage inside the penalty area following an incident of this nature. If the Referee does award advantage and allows the attacker to shoot towards goal, and the attacker subsequently misses the goal, then the Referee is on 'dubious' ground if he then awards a penalty. My 'gut' reaction would be to blow quickly for a penalty, before any further action has taken place.

I have seen some Referees wrongly award an indirect free kick for dangerous play during these accidental! tripping type of incidents. It is either an unintentional accident or a deliberate foul. Either play on, or award a penalty kick (or a direct free kick if occurring outside of the penalty area). It is certainly not a dangerous play indirect free kick (see question 7 above).

Question 15: A goalkeeper comes out of his penalty area, ready to kick the ball clear - he would have beaten the on-coming attacker. However, there is a whistle from the crowd which the goalkeeper thinks is the referee's whistle. He hesitates and stops the ball with his hand.
What action should the referee take? Is it an outside interference, or should a free-kick be awarded, and the goalkeeper sent off?

Answer 15: The Law book (2008/2009) states: If a spectator blows a whistle and the referee considers the whistle interfered with play (e.g. a player picks up the ball with his hands, assuming that play has been stopped), the referee must stop the match and restart the play with a dropped ball from the position of the ball when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped.

There have been several cases of players stopping because they mistook a whistle from the crowd to be the Referees signal. In a recent game, where Iran defeated a Denmark U-23 side 1-0 at the Carlsberg Cup in Hong Kong, an Iran player picked up the ball in his own penalty area after hearing a whistle from the crowd and the referee had no choice but to award a penalty. To their credit, the Danish captain deliberately put the ball wide to earn praise from the Iranian camp as well as those in the stands.

In another incident when France scored a controversial 4th goal against Kuwait in World Cup 1982, no-one could have expected what happened next. The Kuwaitis were furious and claimed a whistle from the crowd had led them to believe that the referee had already stopped play. So outraged were they that the President of the Kuwait FA, Prince Fahid, rushed onto the field from his seat in the stand to protest. Incredibly, Prince Fahid's intervention worked and the Russian referee disallowed the goal! France eventually won the match 4-1, and the Kuwaitis were fined $12,000 for the incident!

In the fifties when Arsenal left back Dennis Evans heard a whistle [from the crowd], and thinking it was the end of the game, casually kicked the ball into his own net. Luckily Arsenal were 4-0 up against Blackpool at the time.

This is the end of the Goal-Scoring Opportunity page:

Go back to the top of this page