Date:         Mon, 22 May 2006 15:19:36 -0700
Reply-To:     Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Wickham, Dennis" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: For those who haven't seen the big play...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Quibbling Patrick's quibble.

The requirements for OGSO were grounded in XII IFBD 15(before the rewrite of
the laws.)   Direction as an OGSO element was identified in FIFA's 1991
memorandum.  It isn't just a USSF analysis.

The zig-zag question haunts me.

Julian Carosi writes: 

"One way for 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 direction that the attacker is moving with the
ball 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 caution him, because the attacker was moving away from goal."

http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/scoropp.htm

Robert Evans, however, is equally persuasive:

"In some of the instructions I have heard being given to referees, those
instructions have been far too literal with the phrase "towards the...goal",
as though any slight deviation from a direct line heading to somewhere
between the posts is sufficient to eliminate the possibility of the defender
being sent off.  That was not the purpose, nor the intent of this law when it
was introduced.

In the case [zig-zag example], the forward goes to the left of the
goalkeeper, who then brings him down.  If the 'keeper had not fouled the
forward, would a goal have been scored?  That is the key question, NOT the
exact geometric alignment of the path taken by the attacking player.  Ask
yourself why the goalkeeper, knowing he was going to be beaten, fouled the
forward.  He committed the foul to prevent the forward scoring!  And so the
DOGSO must be punished appropriately.  To do anything less is to arbitrarily
decide that you are going to rebel against the decision taken by the
International Board of FIFA, the decision that was intended to change the
game by eliminating these cynical fouls."

http://fortheintegrityofsoccer.blogs.com/artandscienceofrefereeing/2005/12/th
e_dogso_revis.html#more



Regards,

Dennis

PS:  Mr. Evans has posted his thoughts on the Champion's League incident.
The title:  "He who does not hesitate is lost."



-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Patrick Duffy
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: For those who haven't seen the big play...

Ed is exactly correct.  "Momentary changes of direction" do not negate DOGSO.

One minor quibble:  Although the 4 D's are USSF instruction to help us
understand DOGSO, they are not necessarily applicable in a UEFA competition.
I really doubt that the referee was standing there thinking "Now what do the
four D's stand for?"  :)



IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or in any attachment).
Confidential - May 22, 2006 
This email and any associated files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees. If you are not the named addressee do not disseminate, distribute, copy or alter this email. Please notify Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek by telephone at 619.685.3001, you will be reimbursed for any reasonable costs.
Warning: SCMV has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the firm cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.