UEFA.com works better on other browsers
For the best possible experience, we recommend using Chrome, Firefox or Microsoft Edge.
Red cards
Clear Line

Red cards

Red cards are most commonly issued for four types of incidents: denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, serious foul play, violent conduct and second yellow cards. We examine what referees must consider in their decision-making, and where VAR should intervene if required.
Overview Goal-scoring opportunity Serious foul play Violent conduct Second yellow Overview Goal-scoring opportunity Serious foul play Violent conduct Second yellow

Denial of a goal-scoring opportunity

When deciding whether an incident involves denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), the referee must assess numerous factors.

  • VAR should recommend a red card where all the DOGSO criteria are clearly met and the referee has missed the offence or has failed to recognise it as a DOGSO situation.
  • VAR should recommend cancelling a red card where one or more of the criteria are not satisfied.
  • If there is doubt regarding any of the criteria, VAR should not intervene.What considerations should be evaluated?

The rationale

A red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is not a judgement about the foul. It is a judgement about what the foul prevented. A red card should be shown when the offence prevented an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. To decide whether this was the case, referees must guide themselves using a set of specific criteria. If the foul was committed inside the penalty area, there are additional considerations.

What referees consider when making a decision

Four criteria decide whether an incident is a DOGSO.

  • the likelihood of the attacker keeping or gaining control of the ball.
  • the distance between the offence and the goal.
  • the general direction of play.
  • the number and position of defenders and attackers.

Additional considerations for DOGSO offences inside the penalty area:

  • Was the defender attempting to play or challenge for the ball?
  • Was the offence a deliberate handball?

✅ When VAR should recommend a red card

All DOGSO criteria are clearly met and one or more of the following situations applies:

  • the referee misses an offence (clear handball / tackle / holding / pushing etc). (Video 1)
  • the referee identifies the offence but fails to recognise it as a DOGSO. (Video 2)
  • the referee penalises a handball but fails to recognise that it was deliberate. (Video 3)
  • the referee penalises an offence inside the penalty area but fails to recognise that it was not an attempt to play or challenge for the ball. (Video 4)

Video 1 – DOGSO: Referee missed clear tripping offence

Video 2 – DOGSO: Referee fails to recognise obvious goal-scoring opportunity

Video 3 – DOGSO: Deliberate handball offence denying a goal

Video 4 – DOGSO: Referee fails to identify an action was not an attempt to play the ball

✅ When VAR should recommend cancelling a red card

One or more of the DOGSO criteria are not satisfied, including where:

  • no offence occurred. (Video 5)
  • an offence inside the penalty area was committed while the defender attempted to play or challenge for the ball. (Video 6 & 7)
  • an attacker did not have, and was unlikely to gain, control of the ball. (Video 8)
  • another defender could reach the ball or challenge the attacker. (Video 9)
  • the direction of the ball did not support the possibility of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

Video 5 – DOGSO: Attacker is guilty of simulation, indirect free kick and yellow card

Video 6 – DOGSO: Player was challenging for ball

Video 7 – DOGSO: Player was challenging for ball

Video 8 – DOGSO: Attacker has no control of ball

Video 9 – DOGSO: Another defender is in position to challenge for ball

❌ When VAR should not intervene

If there is doubt regarding one or more of the DOGSO criteria, including:

  • whether the attacker had, or was likely to gain, control of the ball.
  • whether another defender could have reached the ball or challenged the attacker.
  • whether the likelihood of scoring a goal was sufficient to constitute an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

A decision standing after a check is not VAR failing to act: it means that VAR found no clear and obvious error to correct.