For reference, here are Questions 3.13 and 3.13.1 from the 2006 Q&A: "13. A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take? The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *. 13.1. If the player prevents the goal with his hand, what action does the referee take? The referee stops play and sends-off the substitute for denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *. " Taking 3.13.1 first, the offense listed is desribed as"denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball". This is exactly the wording of Law 12, and exactly what the substitute has done. Send off, no question. But, in 3.13, we all (including me, at first) want to also send off the substitute for the other DOGSO clause, usually referenced as DOGSO-F. That portion of Law 12 reads: "denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offense punishable by a free kick of a penalty kick". Let me restructure it this way: 1. denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity 2. to an opponent moving towards the player's goal 3. by an offense punishable by a free kick of a penalty kick The scenario given in 3.13 is missing the second criterion - no opponent is even mentioned - and so this is not a sending off offense. And that seems, in my opinion, to be the critical distinction that IFAB is making, and instructing us to make. The DOGSO-F send off is not a general ban against denying a goal (or opportunity) - it is reserved for offenses that specifically meet all three of the enumerated criteria. In the past, some people have called this type of offense a "break-away foul": a foul committed solely for the purpose of preventing an opponent from scoring. We also have the four D's of ATR 12.38 as guidelines to exactly what a goal-scoring opportunity is. So, to answer Maurice's question (not included, ed.), denying a goal (or opportunity) is always denying a goal (or opportunity), but denying a goal (or opportunity) is not always a send off. The incident has to meet all the conditions of one or the other of the DOGSO clauses. Otherwise, it's unsporting behavior at most. Would anyone object if you sent off the sub in 3.13? I doubt it, and, in an article for Referee magazine ("Balancing the Rules and Justice", published in January 2006), I described a nearly impossible situation I once faced in trying to sell a caution for a similar offense when all the opponents were convinced that the perp deserved a send off. But the correct color of card is yellow, not red. And it's up to us referees to know that, and apply that knowledge correctly, in spite of the firmly held and vocal opinions of the players. Doug Smith USSF 06 USSF Instructor USSF Assessor ex-NISOA NF NF Assessor Oregon doug smith