DOGSO-H or Offside??? I can’t decide!

Posted: March 12, 2014 by thirdblindmouse in Football
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In a Bundesliga match between Hertha BSC and FC Nurnberg on February 2, 2014, a rather interesting match situation occurs and I can’t figure out what the correct decision should be.  I’ve been fighting with myself for over 3 weeks and at first I thought I knew the answer however, upon looking at the clip again, I’m starting to second guess myself.  So I ask you all…did the referee get it right in the end?

The situation:

In the 87th minute of the match, Herta midfielder takes a long range shot on goal as the keeper is out of position.  As the ball is travelling in the air and about to enter the goal, a Nurnberg defender sneakily handles the ball and tried to make it look like a header.

Pretty simple and textbook call for the referee, right?  Red card for DOGSO-H, restart with a PK for Hertha.  However, this is where it gets interesting.  After the referee shows the Nurnberg defender the red card, he is summoned by his AR and they have a quick chat.  After about a minute, the referee takes back the red card and awards an IDFK to Nurnberg.  The offense?  A Hertha player was in an offside position when the shot was taken and deemed to be involved in active play.

After watching the replay you will notice a Blue Hertha player in an offside position (Hertha player is standing between 2 Nurnberg players…Nurnberg player is just outside the goal line, which places him on the goal line, and the goal keeper ahead of him making the goal keeper the second last defender.)  No argument there!  The shot is taken and after the DOGSO-H happens, that same offside player gets the rebound and plays the ball into the net.

My first impression was that the AR was signalling for the offside at the moment the offside player got the ball.  If that was the case then the referee was correct in his first decision to punish the DOGSO-H as that happened before the offside offence.  However, after watching the replay about 1,000 times, it seems to me that the offside offence that the AR is signalling is for the collision with the GK.  For 3 weeks I had decided that it was my opinion that there was no infringement here and the DOGSO decision was the correct decision, and the referee in the end got his final decision wrong.  However, now that I watch the clip again for the 1,001-st time, I’m starting to see that the Hertha player did in fact come into contact with the Nurnberg GK, which impeded his progress to attempt to save the ball headed towards his goal and therefore, the Hertha player must be penalized for being in an offside position and involved in active play by interfering with an opponent.

Now I’m just completely confused and i’m not sure which way to go.

So I ask you…did the referee get this right?

You make the call and let me know your thoughts!

Happy Whistling!

The Third Blind Mouse

 

UPDATE!!!!
With the recent clarification to the interpretation of Law 11, the outcome of this entire situation has now changed!

Let’s break it down…

1) Shot on goal from long range. Blue player in offside position (stop clip at 2:24)
2) Ball is headed directly into the net and a red player deliberately handles the ball.
3) Interpretation for law 11 states “A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.”
4) One cannot make a deliberate save by deliberately handling the ball (except for the GK within his own PA)
5)Therefore, in this case, the red defender has now deliberately played the ball (albeit with his hand)
6) This deliberate action now negates the offside position and the Blue player is no longer deemed to have gained an advantage – advantage is applied
7) Goal is scored and allowed
8) Red defender is Cautioned for Unsporting Behavior, and shown the yellow card.

Ping-pong anyone??? 🙂

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Jenna says:

    Wow. Tough one. That AR looked completely sure of his decision, though…

    • Ok…but then the question that came to my mind was…did the Hertha striker actually interfere with the GK? If he didn’t, then the DOGSO-H should stand. What is your opinion on the offside?

  2. Hi, stumbled upon the video above on YouTube and saw it later here on your blog via my rss feeds. I had the same questions you had and finally found a statement on the website of the German FA about the situation which says: a red card plus penalty kick should be awarded. Check English translation of the statement on my blog: http://www.dutchreferee.com/?p=3691

  3. I am new to your blog but enjoying it so far. I see the situation as the player did not interfere with play. The keeper did not have any chance in any way to make a play on the ball. The attacking wasn’t attempting to interfere with the keeper. I also don’t have DOGSO, the reason is advantage should have been applied, the player who handled the ball then did not actually deny the goal scoring opportunity merely delayed it. While FIFA and NFHS and NISOA all differ on this exact situation, I am firmly in the High School camp as far as my interpretation of FIFA Laws. A goal was scored reducing the infringement to a caution for TF or US or whatever you actually want to call it.

    • Hi Matthew,
      Thanks for your thoughts.
      Here is my rebuttal, if you choose to accept it. 😉

      Blue #20 is in an offside position when the first, initial shot is taken – I think we can both agree on that. If we do not consider him interfering with an opponent (the goal keeper in this scenario), then we surely must consider him gaining an advantage by being in that position because he is the one who gets the rebound after the defender handles the ball. Therefore, the goal from the rebound cannot stand, which automatically throws out the caution for USB. Since Blue #20 is now offside, then there is no advantage to be played here (his goal cannot legally be allowed) and therefore, the handling offence must be dealt with and the defender must be sent off for DOGSO-H.

      • I do understand where you are coming from in gaining an advantage from being in an offside position when the balled was shot towards the goal. However, the red player on the goaline plays the ball. LOTG do not dictate what part of the body plays the ball, just that the ball was played, and while the ball was played illegally using the arm, it was still played meaning at the moment the ball was played by an opponent the attacker was no longer in an offside position, and can’t be offside anyway because the ball was not played by a member of his team. The referee uses advantage, caution and goal is awarded.

        Granted all of this is in slow motion and heresay and I would have most likely done the exact same thing as the center official in the game. If an assistant were to tell me there was offsides, I would 9,999 times out of 10,000 agree and award an indirect free kick.

      • I agree with your rationale as the LOTG state on pg. 115 that “An attacker in an offside position is penalised for playing or touching the ball that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by a player from the defending team having been in an offside positions when the ball was last touched or is played by a team-mate.” However, at what point is a player deemed to be gaining an advantage? In this case, the flag goes up, and the player is penalised at the moment he is involved in active play, ie. when he plays the ball. The attacker (Blue #20) plays the ball AFTER the handling offence. I understand your point that the advantage should have been applied to allow the shot to be taken, resulting in a goal and therefore only a caution to the defender for USB handling. However, since the attacker is deemed to be offside (gaining an advantage), then the advantage clause cannot be applied as there is no advantage here; the goal would never have been allowed in the first place.

        Let’s say the handling didn’t take place and the shot was saved by the defender as he headed or chested the ball away from the goal line. Blue #20 would have put the ball in the net and the goal would not have been allowed because he was offside (gaining an advantage). The AR was correct in that decision.

        Now, we add the handling…this doesn’t change the fact that Blue #20 is offside (gaining an advantage). Therefore, the goal does not count. Therefore, there is no advantage. Therefore, the handling offence happened FIRST and must be dealt with accordingly – the handling offence denied an obvious goal and must be sanctioned as a send off offence.

  4. One last point….if the AR told me there was an offside offence, I would, and always ask…”when did it happen? Before or after the handball?” In this case, the AR was clearly calling the offside for the rebound (judging by where the IDFK was taken), and at that point I would say thank you, but the handling offense happened first, no advantage (obviously), and send off the defender.

    • I agree with your rational in breaking down the play, and your analysis on the defender using his head or chest rather than hand definitely changed my perspective. I see three distinct parts the first being the shot on goal which we can all agree blue 20 is in an offside position. 2nd is the handling, 3rd the rebound. I am going to focus on the first.

      After the shot we have 6 potential scenarios. The ball enters the goal directly, the ball goes over the goal line for a goal kick, the ball is deflected for a corner kick, the ball is deflected by the goal posts into the field of play, the ball is deflected into the field of play by a defender/keeper, the ball is played back into the field of play by a defender/keeper.

      In the goal option, the question is did #20 interfere with the keeper preventing the save, if so, the player is offside, if that is the case, no matter what happens in the other 5 scenarios the player is offside negating the handball/DOGSO PK.

      It would appear that this is not where offside is being called, it is being called for gaining an advantage. This means that offside cannot be called on the corner kick/goal kick/goal scenario because the player would not have gained an advantage at that point.

      As you stated and I wholeheartedly agree, the player gained the advantage after the ball was rebounded onto the field of play. The player would be considered offside if the ball was saved by the keeper, deflected off a player, deflected off a goalpost.(I was to here when I saw your last comment) Before you last comment I was going to argue that the player played the ball because a field player could not make a save. I did verify the laws of the game pg 108 and deliberate save is listed as a defender not just a keeper making my argument and point invalid.

      Therefore after all of this I have to say you have convinced me that the offside should have been penalized and the German confederation has it wrong.

      • Gast, then I think about it again and the deliberate save was made by handling so now I am back to DOGSO, has to be DOGSO he denied the obvious goal scoring opportunity, I think the offside offense, becomes irrelevant at that point as if the ball had gone directly into the goal there would not have been offsides.

      • larbitre says:

        Agree with DOGSO then Matthew?

      • Yes I agree with DOGSO.

      • LMAO!!!!
        I feel your pain! I was conflicted, as I said, for 3 weeks before finally realizing that this is definitely DOGSO! Nothing anyone can say will have me think otherwise. I can prove it using LOTG, and that’s all I need! 😀

        HAPPY WHISTLING!!!!!

  5. One thing to note Matthew…

    The defender’s play on the goal line is a DELIBERATE SAVE. Not just a DELIBERATE PLAY.

    That means… offside.

  6. […] To give you a bit of a teaser/backstory, have a read of Third Blind Mouse’s piece on this situation. https://thirdblindmouse.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/dogso-h-or-offside-i-cant-decide/ […]

  7. […] incident was described in my post on March 12, 2014 titled “DOGSO-H or Offside??? I can’t decide!”  I thought I had nailed this case shut, and brilliantly explaining the correct decision […]

  8. UPDATE!!!!
    With the recent clarification to the interpretation of Law 11, the outcome of this entire situation has now changed!

    Let’s break it down…

    1) Shot on goal from long range. Blue player in offside position (stop clip at 2:24)
    2) Ball is headed directly into the net and a red player deliberately handles the ball.
    3) Interpretation for law 11 states “A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
    to have gained an advantage.”
    4) One cannot make a deliberate save by deliberately handling the ball (except for the GK within his own PA)
    5)Therefore, in this case, the red defender has now deliberately played the ball (albeit with his hand)
    6) This deliberate action now negates the offside position and the Blue player is no longer deemed to have gained an advantage – advantage is applied
    7) Goal is scored and allowed
    8) Red defender is Cautioned for Unsporting Behavior, and shown the yellow card.

    Ping-pong anyone???
    🙂

Opinion???

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s