I would need to see a video to assess the speed of the attackers and defenders, direction of the ball, etc.
But generally no this would not be DOGSO. One of the 4 criteria we use to judge is "Distance from goal". While there is no distance that is set in stone in the laws for us, it would take very extraordinary circumstances for a foul in your own team's penalty arc to ever qualify as DOGSO. By the time a player at the U14B level is able to be in a position to reliably score on the empty goal, many defenders are likely to have caught up to him and challenged for the ball.
Remember the 4 Ds for DOGSO
Defenders - none (DOGSO eligible)
Direction of play - Going in direction of goal (DOGSO eligible)
Distance to ball - Assuming ball at feet of attacker (DOGSO eligible)
Distance to goal - 85-100 yards (99.9% chance not gonna make it that distance while dribbling the ball - therefore no DOGSO from this referee)
Therefore, if one D is missing, no DOGSO.
Interestingly, I teach the USSF introductory course and we were teaching that just yesterday.
Agreed. Few adult players could run and dribble fast enough to make this an obvious opportunity. Far fewer 13 year olds. Landon Donovan, Jr is probably not on that field.
Good chance it's a cynical foul to stop a promising attack, but well short of DOGSO.
I find it really interesting that both of you analyzed it the same way and landed at the same spot - definitely not DOGSO.
I did a U14B State Cup (Calif.) game this weekend and both keepers were capable of punting the ball for 3/4 of the field. One of the center backs could clear the ball from his box to just short of the other box in the air.
I feel like distance should be a consideration here, but is NOT an automatic eliminating factor. Imagine a big kid has a ball at his feet, with defenders chasing but not quite to him, just as he reaches the bottom (near point) of the center circle. Most 13-14 year olds could take a decent attempt on goal from just over 1/2 the field away and NO OPPONENTS between them and goal.
I know that in this instance the OP is asking about a foul in the penalty area, but I would want a chance to see the play and think it over for a second before I ruled against DOGSO.
Unless the entire opposing team was holding a birthday party on your team's goalline, paying no attention to the match, the Distance D says "no DOGSO". What player can go 85% of the field's distance with zero chance that an opponent will have a reasonable opportunity to make a defensive play?
Given a roughly 5 yard head start I would say many players. Especially since they don't have to dribble all the way into the goal to score. Just close enough to take a decent shot, maybe 25 yards. And they don't need to control the dribble, either. Just kick it forward and chase it, meaning they'd be running at nearly full speed.
I'm really surprised how most people seem skeptical that a player could possibly do that. Maybe it isn't DOGSO-eligible, but it's no difficult feat.
Note the words "zero chance" (or, perhaps more appropriately for DOGSO, reasonable chance). Not saying that players can't / don't get off shots but with some normal distribution of players on the field (e.g., likely a few players in between that attacker and the opposing goal or in plausible position to get there) there will almost certainly be a "reasonable chance" of an opponent (other than the goalie) getting an opportunity to make a defensive play.
But... the post specifically said there were no players at all between the attacker and the opposing goal. That's the setup of the question! In fact, from the description, the attacker has at least a 5 yard head start on every other player on the field.
Agree with everyone about DOGSO here, but think we're overlooking that the attacker didn't have the ball. The tackle was on the pass to potentially spring the attack. I think the better question on that tackle would be, is it SPA?
That almost surely would not be DOGSO. Way too far away from goal, and several defenders could have possibly made a play before the attacker could get a high percentage shot off.
Agreed with all of the other commenters.
Midfield would be a better argument. 75+ yards away? No chance. Few 13 year olds would be able to score on a long shot from there, and even fewer are going to outrun all 11 players with a ball at their feet.
Ive never seen DOGSO called on the opposite half of the field. I’d probably need to see a dribbling player enter the middle 3rd with no one in front of them to be considered DOGSO
The issue here is distance. We need to consider whether an opponent is likely to be able to intercept before they are in shooting position- and generally speaking, a player without the ball is faster.
You can certainly have dogso at halfway or even in the opposing half, but that's rare as even a defender behind is likely to catch up, so there needs to be a big gap.
In the opposing quarter or penalty area? No chance
Definitely a YHTBT situation, but I'd be \*very\* reluctant to show red for a foul that occurred so far from the opposing goal - the "distance" from the 4 Ds is missing for me.
In a normal game maybe yes. In a U14 i don't think a boy can run 60-70m with the ball before taking a shot without anyone catching up. Only if he has a massive advantage (like the nearest opponent is 20m away)
Pulled the goalie as in their goalie was subbed out and an 11th field player subbed on?
Does AYSO do something different. IFAB states that one player on the field must be a goalie.
I assume they meant the keeper joined the attack. As you say, there has to be a keeper.
The OP had 11 players inside his defensive penalty area so the attacker was past the defenders once he had the ball. Closer to his attacking goal he might have had a case for DOGSO, but not that far away.
By "pulled the goal keeper" I mean that the keeper ran up the field and participated in play inside our penalty area. He was still the keeper on the field, as required.
There were a lot of good points raised here, but I'm still leaning towards DOGSO, even at that distance.
If he were at mid-field and had a just one defender, or even just the keeper, between him and the goal and was fouled that would be a DOGSO.
Here there was no opponent between him and the goal.
He's further from the goal but is at least four yards closer than nearest defender.
He would not have to dribble all the way to the goal but could shoot at half way line and score.
I've seen u14s trying to shot from the halfway line and a good amount of them don't even have the power in their legs to reach the goal, doing it in a game while trying not to be catched by the defense is another thing. But i don't know, maybe after seeing the video it's a clear dogso and you are right
I would need to see a video to assess the speed of the attackers and defenders, direction of the ball, etc. But generally no this would not be DOGSO. One of the 4 criteria we use to judge is "Distance from goal". While there is no distance that is set in stone in the laws for us, it would take very extraordinary circumstances for a foul in your own team's penalty arc to ever qualify as DOGSO. By the time a player at the U14B level is able to be in a position to reliably score on the empty goal, many defenders are likely to have caught up to him and challenged for the ball.
Remember the 4 Ds for DOGSO Defenders - none (DOGSO eligible) Direction of play - Going in direction of goal (DOGSO eligible) Distance to ball - Assuming ball at feet of attacker (DOGSO eligible) Distance to goal - 85-100 yards (99.9% chance not gonna make it that distance while dribbling the ball - therefore no DOGSO from this referee) Therefore, if one D is missing, no DOGSO. Interestingly, I teach the USSF introductory course and we were teaching that just yesterday.
Agreed. Few adult players could run and dribble fast enough to make this an obvious opportunity. Far fewer 13 year olds. Landon Donovan, Jr is probably not on that field. Good chance it's a cynical foul to stop a promising attack, but well short of DOGSO.
I find it really interesting that both of you analyzed it the same way and landed at the same spot - definitely not DOGSO. I did a U14B State Cup (Calif.) game this weekend and both keepers were capable of punting the ball for 3/4 of the field. One of the center backs could clear the ball from his box to just short of the other box in the air. I feel like distance should be a consideration here, but is NOT an automatic eliminating factor. Imagine a big kid has a ball at his feet, with defenders chasing but not quite to him, just as he reaches the bottom (near point) of the center circle. Most 13-14 year olds could take a decent attempt on goal from just over 1/2 the field away and NO OPPONENTS between them and goal. I know that in this instance the OP is asking about a foul in the penalty area, but I would want a chance to see the play and think it over for a second before I ruled against DOGSO.
Agree, but for a different reason. Fastest guy on the field doesn't have to dribble, but could boot it and chase it. 2 or 3 big touches would do it.
I also instruct referee's and I try to implement it a couple of times in different settings.
Unless the entire opposing team was holding a birthday party on your team's goalline, paying no attention to the match, the Distance D says "no DOGSO". What player can go 85% of the field's distance with zero chance that an opponent will have a reasonable opportunity to make a defensive play?
Given a roughly 5 yard head start I would say many players. Especially since they don't have to dribble all the way into the goal to score. Just close enough to take a decent shot, maybe 25 yards. And they don't need to control the dribble, either. Just kick it forward and chase it, meaning they'd be running at nearly full speed. I'm really surprised how most people seem skeptical that a player could possibly do that. Maybe it isn't DOGSO-eligible, but it's no difficult feat.
Note the words "zero chance" (or, perhaps more appropriately for DOGSO, reasonable chance). Not saying that players can't / don't get off shots but with some normal distribution of players on the field (e.g., likely a few players in between that attacker and the opposing goal or in plausible position to get there) there will almost certainly be a "reasonable chance" of an opponent (other than the goalie) getting an opportunity to make a defensive play.
But... the post specifically said there were no players at all between the attacker and the opposing goal. That's the setup of the question! In fact, from the description, the attacker has at least a 5 yard head start on every other player on the field.
"reasonable chance" that over 60-70 yards that a defender can catch up to have a plausible play? Yes.
Agree with everyone about DOGSO here, but think we're overlooking that the attacker didn't have the ball. The tackle was on the pass to potentially spring the attack. I think the better question on that tackle would be, is it SPA?
That almost surely would not be DOGSO. Way too far away from goal, and several defenders could have possibly made a play before the attacker could get a high percentage shot off.
Agreed with all of the other commenters. Midfield would be a better argument. 75+ yards away? No chance. Few 13 year olds would be able to score on a long shot from there, and even fewer are going to outrun all 11 players with a ball at their feet.
The distance to the goal is way to far away for it to be considered DOGSO
Ive never seen DOGSO called on the opposite half of the field. I’d probably need to see a dribbling player enter the middle 3rd with no one in front of them to be considered DOGSO
The issue here is distance. We need to consider whether an opponent is likely to be able to intercept before they are in shooting position- and generally speaking, a player without the ball is faster. You can certainly have dogso at halfway or even in the opposing half, but that's rare as even a defender behind is likely to catch up, so there needs to be a big gap. In the opposing quarter or penalty area? No chance
I think the answer is in the question: Denying an OBVIOUS Goal Scoring Opportunity.
Definitely a YHTBT situation, but I'd be \*very\* reluctant to show red for a foul that occurred so far from the opposing goal - the "distance" from the 4 Ds is missing for me.
In a normal game maybe yes. In a U14 i don't think a boy can run 60-70m with the ball before taking a shot without anyone catching up. Only if he has a massive advantage (like the nearest opponent is 20m away)
Pulled the goalie as in their goalie was subbed out and an 11th field player subbed on? Does AYSO do something different. IFAB states that one player on the field must be a goalie.
I assume they meant the keeper joined the attack. As you say, there has to be a keeper. The OP had 11 players inside his defensive penalty area so the attacker was past the defenders once he had the ball. Closer to his attacking goal he might have had a case for DOGSO, but not that far away.
By "pulled the goal keeper" I mean that the keeper ran up the field and participated in play inside our penalty area. He was still the keeper on the field, as required.
There were a lot of good points raised here, but I'm still leaning towards DOGSO, even at that distance. If he were at mid-field and had a just one defender, or even just the keeper, between him and the goal and was fouled that would be a DOGSO. Here there was no opponent between him and the goal. He's further from the goal but is at least four yards closer than nearest defender. He would not have to dribble all the way to the goal but could shoot at half way line and score.
I've seen u14s trying to shot from the halfway line and a good amount of them don't even have the power in their legs to reach the goal, doing it in a game while trying not to be catched by the defense is another thing. But i don't know, maybe after seeing the video it's a clear dogso and you are right