Should a denial of a goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) always result in a penalty?

[P-Ro]

I would be in favour of a rule change that automatically awards a penalty to the attacking team wherever the foul has taken place in these situations. If you're denying a clear goal scoring opportunity then the team on the receiving end should get a clear goal scoring opportunity (a penalty) along with the opposition receiving a red card if it was intentional. At the moment you are getting players sent off for a DOGSO offense outside of the box while attempting to make a genuine challenge for the ball and this is wrong in my book. You also have players intentionally doing a DOGSO offense by bringing down a player and receiving a red card late on in games because the opposition are far less likely to score from a free kick and 3 extra minutes against ten men then they would do if they'd not been fouled.

Who's with me? Let's make a petition and get this rule changed for the better of the game.

 

[Skills]

DOGSO is too open for interpretation.

Great acronym though

 

[Powderfinger]

I hate the double jeopardy. I'd be open to the idea of a penalty without a red card but penalty+red is too much of a game killer.

 

[massi83]

I hate the double jeopardy. I'd be open to the idea of a penalty without a red card but penalty+red is too much of a game killer.

I might have some good news for you.

 

[phelans shorts]

I hate the double jeopardy. I'd be open to the idea of a penalty without a red card but penalty+red is too much of a game killer.

Didn’t this change like 3 years ago to remove double jeopardy

 

[padr81]

Didn’t this change like 3 years ago to remove double jeopardy

Only if its non-intentional, so a deliberate foul is still red + pen but one where its clear the attempt to play the ball is legit is just a pen iirc or just a red. That said given its open to interpretation that just means its inconsistently applied as usual.

 

[Powderfinger]

I might have some good news for you.

Didn’t this change like 3 years ago to remove double jeopardy

I know it changed but the OP wants to reinstate with this rule!

 

[mu4c_20le]

I hate the double jeopardy. I'd be open to the idea of a penalty without a red card but penalty+red is too much of a game killer.

I miss it actually. It's blatant cheating especially if it was an open goal, and then the keeper saves the pen. Maybe let the team decide pen or card.

 

[massi83]

I know it changed but the OP wants to reinstate with this rule!

Oh, right, my bad. I don't read through long posts from OP, unless it is a pie-review, when is next one coming @P-Ro ?

 

[SuperiorXI]

DOGSO is too close to DOGSHIT acronym DENIED

 

[P-Ro]

I know it changed but the OP wants to reinstate with this rule!

No I'm not. There's already double jeopardy for intentional fouls. I want to get rid of sending people off for a foul where the player makes a genuine attempt to win the ball.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I would be in favour of a rule change that automatically awards a penalty to the attacking team wherever the foul has taken place in these situations. If you're denying a clear goal scoring opportunity then the team on the receiving end should get a clear goal scoring opportunity (a penalty) along with the opposition receiving a red card if it was intentional. At the moment you are getting players sent off for a DOGSO offense outside of the box while attempting to make a genuine challenge for the ball and this is wrong in my book. You also have players intentionally doing a DOGSO offense by bringing down a player and receiving a red card late on in games because the opposition are far less likely to score from a free kick and 3 extra minutes against ten men then they would do if they'd not been fouled.

Who's with me? Let's make a petition and get this rule changed for the better of the game.

How about you give them a free run from 25 yards out but the goalie can move… bit like hockey. Goalie can come out to narrow the angle (same as he could in an actual goal scoring opportunity) but comes out too far, gets chipped.

If they get a penalty, it’s a lot better than some (most?) goal scoring opportunities, especially if you’re deadly at them like Kane… or Martial apparently?!

(Chelsea lad should have gone though. No way another defender is catching the Palace lad before he gets to the area… which is all a goal scoring opportunity is really? An opportunity.)

 

[Zippycup]

No I'm not. There's already double jeopardy for intentional fouls. I want to get rid of sending people off for a foul where the player makes a genuine attempt to win the ball.

Isn't that already in place?

 

[I’m loving my life]

DOGSO is too close to DOGSHIT acronym DENIED

Dogging should result in some kind of penalty

 

[P-Ro]

Isn't that already in place?

If you unintentionally bring someone down outside the box and it's a DOGSO then it's an automatic red card. I'm saying in these scenarios it should instead be a penalty to the opposition and the player should not be sent off.

 

[FootballHQ]

It's pretty rare you actually get a red now for being last man in the box when you take down a striker, refs will always look at every reason why they shouldn't sent off the defender/midfielder.

Was a while back now but in last world cup I think it was a danish defender who took down a player who had rounded the keeper and was about to slot into an open net and he somehow didn't get sent off.

I don't have a problem with that anyway as a team getting a penalty, actually scoring it and other team going down to 10 men all in one instance is a massive game killer in 99% of them especially if it's right at the start of a match.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Aka 'People who are afraid of dogso.'

 

[WeePat]

No because there are varying degrees of goal scoring opportunities. Being through on goal from the halfway line but there is a chance a rapid defender can at least catch up enough to put you under hard pressure when you’re about to shoot isn’t equal to a penalty.

What you’re suggesting is basically the opposite of the foul in the non threatening part of the box, you know the top corner of it (see Rudiger vs Leeds last season) where you get a penalty for nothing really.

 

[acnumber9]

I hate the double jeopardy. I'd be open to the idea of a penalty without a red card but penalty+red is too much of a game killer.

Then it’s up to defenders not to deliberately foul.

 

[tenpoless]

Yes if its against Chelsea and AFC Wimbledon.

 

[11 forwards]

It's too complicated and too dependent on interpretations of this and that. And with such a high reward diving will peak.