Date:         Tue, 23 May 2006 00:23:55 -0400
Reply-To:     Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Fred Speirs <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: For those who haven't seen the big play...
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

The danger with Julianšs rubric is that it seems to exclude the possibility
of a foul which has no associated card.

Fred


On 22/5/06 18:19, "Wickham, Dennis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.