Date:         Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:26:55 -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:         Jim Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: DOGSO - No Possession
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Simon Guenzl wrote:
> Does the attacker need to have actual possession
> of the ball before a DOGSO can be called?

Not necessarily.  However, not having (or having had) possession will
probably make it less likely that there is a DOGSO situation.  Recall the
four criteria for a DOGSO-F:
-- Number of Defenders ... ;
-- Distance to goal ... ;
-- Distance to ball -- the attacker must have been close enough to the ball
at the time of the foul to continue playing the ball
-- Direction of play ... 
If the attacker has not had possession for *continuing* to play the ball,
then you'd need a strong presumption that he was going to gain possession,
plus the required proximity to the ball and other fulfilled criteria.  
Speed and direction of movement of the attacker could extend the "Playing
distance" slightly.

Simon continued:
> I'm thinking of two particular situations,
> both involving the attacking team playing the ball
> over the last defender and first attacker (who are together),
> landing between them and the 'keeper:
> A. Attacker gets in front and, before he or the 'keeper
> touches the ball, the defender pulls the attacker back.
> B. Defender gets in front and, before the 'keeper touches
> the ball, the defender blocks the attacker's run,
> when the defender is not within playing distance of the ball.

The USSF Advice, Law 12 Part D, is dedicated to explaining DOGSO and is
worth reviewing.  See especially the illustrations in Section 12.40, where
both of these situations are pictured.  The illustrations include a diagram
of a DOGSO situation in which the ball is last played by a defender.

Assuming that the four criteria are met and obvious, the offense may be
anything punishable by a free kick or penalty kick, or non-foul misconduct.

In situation A, if the four criteria are met, the offense would be DOGSO.
Situation B leaves two of the OGSO criteria unsatisfied: When the defender
gets ahead of the attacker, then the attacker no longer has an OGSO; Also,
the situation specifies that the attacker is not within playing distance. 
The infraction becomes a simple foul.

> Can it be an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity
> if someone doesn't yet have possession of the ball?

Yes, with qualifications.
A close reading of the USSF Advice brings out several allusions to this. 
DOGSO-H doesn't require the four criteria OR an attacking player; The event
only needs a handling foul to deny a goal or OGSO.  DOGSO-F requires that
the criteria be met, but (12.37 last sentence) adds:  "Even if all these
criteria are met, it is still the judgment and opinion of the referee that
determines if the event was an obvious goalscoring opportunity."
Be careful how far you try to stretch the DOGSO concept.

For the GOTG,
Jim Gordon