BarrygoestoBolton wrote:Rescinded, apparently. Rightly so.
Not ‘serious foul play’ and double jeopardy should have applied.
Fair enough, and thanks for the good news.
DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned
if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).
A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee's permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.
The following must be considered:
distance between the offence and the goal
general direction of the play
likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
location and number of defenders
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]I wasn't aware that different types of foul have different types of tariffs in the event of an infringement in the penalty area.
So in simple words a referee can not give a penalty AND also a sending off for a foul resulting from genuine attempt to win the ball. (that being the double jeopardy bit).
You would have hoped that a referee even at third tier level should have known that.