Date:         Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:26:31 -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:         Jim Geissman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: DOGSO - No Possession
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I think the timing matters.  If you have an OGSO with a solo
attacker, and a defender suddenly appears and his only effect
is to cause the attacker to hesitate so that the ball runs to the
keeper, then it's arguable that the OGSO was taken away.
OTOH, if the defender has an attacker on his back while he's
escorting the ball back to the keeper, which is not OGSO,
and he decides to slow and let the ball run away while he
continues to stay in the attacker's way, then I don't think an
OGSO is created just because he obstructs.

At 10:21 AM 6/29/2008, Glenn R Sogge wrote:
>Agree.  And re # of defenders, isn't it one _besides_ the one 
>committing the infringement -- in this case the impeding defender is 
>committing the infraction with only GK to beat.  So I would probably 
>(YHTBT) go with DOGSO.
>
>-- Glenn
>
>At 01:11 AM 6/29/2008, Reza Pazirandeh wrote:
>>Yes, but the open path disappeared "because of" the infringement and
>>therefore OGSO was denied. What am I missing?
>>
>>Reza Pazirandeh
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>Geissman wrote:
>>Alternate JimG makes an interesting point here -- if the defender is
>>able
>>to get into position to impede, his presence between the attacker and
>>the ball probably cancels the OGSO because the attacker no longer has
>>an open path to the ball and goal.  So if he then decides to obstruct
>>(perhaps to let the ball run to the keeper) rather than play the ball,
>>it's
>>likely to be just the simple IFK foul.
>>
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG.
>>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.2/1523 - Release Date:
>>6/28/2008 7:00 AM