Advantage question
- Thread starter HoofItYouDonkey
- Start date
This is not what the law says. It says that the ref should let play continue if the team will benefit and bring play back if they don't. If they score a goal then they have benefited, if they don't then they haven't. Having a shot at goal which you miss is not a benefit over a PK.
What about fouls where there is no DOGSO? According to your argument a goal and a yellow is better than a penalty and a yellow so you should allow advantage if a goal is likely to be scored...
@McTavish I Said "Penalty and Red " ? we are talking about an advantageous outcome to the team that has been fouled .
Yes I know you are talking about penalty and red now but OP was about a non-DOGSO foul and you said:
Goal plus yellow is more advantageous than PK plus yellow but you are not allowing that possibility.
I agree with your last comment. However, the team offended against did not have the chance of a shot at goal before the foul - In the original post the statement said that this was not a DOGSO. They therefore benefit because they have a shot at goal (which they unfortunately miss). This is therefore an advantageous situation - just not a very good one. As you rightly say, "Having a shot at goal which you miss is not a benefit over a PK" This is why it is unwise to play advantage after a defender's foul in the penalty area. Most senior Referees will recommend that you never play advantage in place of a penalty kick. You're likely to be on a loser whatever happens, and at the end of the day most people will expect a penalty kick. As we say, NO SURPRISES!
As the Referee you can decide what constitutes a benefit to the team offended against. If you decide that unless a goal is scored then the team has not benefitted then that's up to you. However, if you decide this when being assessed then I would expect an interesting debrief, at least if it was me doing it! They do benefit in the original example, but it's really not a benefit worth having unless there's a really good chance he will score.
The IFAB notes in the LOTG states that
"The referee should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to
apply the advantage or stop play:
• the severity of the offence: if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the
referee must stop play and send off the player unless
there is a subsequent
opportunity to score a goal
• the chances of an immediate, promising attack"
It does not state "unless a goal is scored". Although this is obviously the ultimate advantage it's not the only one possible benefit and having decided to play advantage you should not call the play back if the attacker wastes the opportunity.
As Beezer says, from experience I am very wary about playing advantage in the penalty area and will always stop play to award the PK quickly and this is always my advice when assessing.
A word to the (un)wise, keep doing the first but drop the second. Keep doing the second you'll find the middle a lonely place if you make it to L4.
Thanks for the reply. I understand the point but surely at the moment that you decide advantage/no advantage the team that has been offended against has effectively been awarded a penalty which has just not been signaled yet and therefore they did have the chance of a shot at goal and a very good one at that? Any advantage would need to be a greater benefit than that.
One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is it depends who it falls to, the skill level and the match temperature.
If it falls to the number 9 who's finished everything then there could be an advantage to letting him finishing it (for the team) although I guess the counter argument is that he could take the penalty and score that.
If it falls to the centre back who is only there because he got lost and he's shanked every clearance that wasn't with his head then I'd blow instantly.
And if it's Sunday League and its Division 16 with Dog and Duck 5th Team vs Red Lion 6ths then I'm blowing straight away too.
Also whether to blow or not depends on what the match temperature is like. You're not letting it play on if you're worried that they're gonna get minced too! If you've been not playing advantage on the Halfway line then why start now?
If it falls to the number 9 who's finished everything then there could be an advantage to letting him finishing it (for the team) although I guess the counter argument is that he could take the penalty and score that.
If it falls to the centre back who is only there because he got lost and he's shanked every clearance that wasn't with his head then I'd blow instantly.
And if it's Sunday League and its Division 16 with Dog and Duck 5th Team vs Red Lion 6ths then I'm blowing straight away too.
Also whether to blow or not depends on what the match temperature is like. You're not letting it play on if you're worried that they're gonna get minced too! If you've been not playing advantage on the Halfway line then why start now?
RefereeingBooks
Active Member
Wow, so many views! Maybe we should all agree to disagree 
There appear to be more advocates of a penalty (and sanction) than there are those championing giving the advantage. Both sides have advanced strong arguments and come up with compelling reasons why their views are valid. I've learned a lot from this thread. Thank you all for that. As for my stance: I tend to agree with the 'give a PK immediately' side, but I also believe there is a case to be made for circumstances that would favour an advantage decision. Like I said in an earlier post, the moment a situation occurs like the one the original poster described (or my own situation in another post), a million things go through the ref's head - and a few more now after reading these six pages - and they all contribute to his decision. I think we're all agreed that every situation is different, every ref is different, every match is different, and all these things weigh in on the eventual decision. It's not always as clear-cut as some here argue it is.
I do hope we all like to learn from one another and are willing to take in suggestions rather than dig in our heels and think we know best. That's why we're on this forum, right?
There appear to be more advocates of a penalty (and sanction) than there are those championing giving the advantage. Both sides have advanced strong arguments and come up with compelling reasons why their views are valid. I've learned a lot from this thread. Thank you all for that. As for my stance: I tend to agree with the 'give a PK immediately' side, but I also believe there is a case to be made for circumstances that would favour an advantage decision. Like I said in an earlier post, the moment a situation occurs like the one the original poster described (or my own situation in another post), a million things go through the ref's head - and a few more now after reading these six pages - and they all contribute to his decision. I think we're all agreed that every situation is different, every ref is different, every match is different, and all these things weigh in on the eventual decision. It's not always as clear-cut as some here argue it is.
I do hope we all like to learn from one another and are willing to take in suggestions rather than dig in our heels and think we know best. That's why we're on this forum, right?
I agree with you about that - at least I did until it all went pear-shaped! As a newly - qualified level 4 I did this on my Supply League many years ago. I thought it was a great advantage and thought "I can always bring it back, can't I?" However, when I awarded the penalty after the player shanked his shot a near riot ensued! The team who actually benefitted had wanted the penalty straight away rather than a second chance, and I almost had to dismiss an attacking player for his comments to that effect. The defending team shouted quite loudly that they thought I was wrong - not those words but you get the gist - and I did have to dismiss one of them, and I was lucky it was only one. As a result my club marks suffered from both teams.
In addition the assessor did not agree and gave development points for Advantage (playing an unwise advantage rather than a penalty kick) as well as Application of law (in his opinion I was wrong in Law for awarding the penalty after the advantage had been lost.) My match control also wasn't great as a result due to the untidy scenes that resulted and the aftermath of the incident as I struggled to recover the game! At the time we didn't get to see our marks so I don't know how much of an effect this all had but I was glad that we could not be removed in our first season on the league!
I actually think you are more likely to be able to do this on junior leagues because the players are not as bullish as more senior ones and more likely to go with the flow. However, having been on the receiving end of this I would always recommend just giving the penalty - it's what everyone expects and even though you will get grief from the defence they know you're right really so it shouldn't be too bad.
Thanks again Markt. In reality I am probably closer to the Beezer school of thinking in so far as I can imagine almost no instances where I would actually signal advantage but I would also on occasion delay - maybe up to a second - before blowing the whistle to see what happened. I certainly think that the LOTG allow "two bites of the cherry" but recognise that in practice this may not be advisable...
No problem. As a point of interest, while the English FA do not like this I believe this practise may be recommended by the American FA. However, they state that the Referee must not actually shout advantage or use the recognized signal. This is because if a player is switched on then he could refuse the advantage in order to get an opponent dismissed with no loss of benefit towards himself since he will still have the penalty kick. With no shout he is not sure if there is an advantage being played and will therefore always take the shot. In addition if you do shout then you risk what happened to me happening to you, which is never good!
Their recommendation appears to be that if players query you then you can say - as has already been commented - "I was just about to blow when he took the shot!"
However, I would still always recommend the Referee stop play and give the PK because it's safest and will get fewer arguments.
Their recommendation appears to be that if players query you then you can say - as has already been commented - "I was just about to blow when he took the shot!"
However, I would still always recommend the Referee stop play and give the PK because it's safest and will get fewer arguments.
Yampy
RefChat Addict
There's plenty of examples of these opportunities being missed. However, it isn't this 'obvious' goal scoring opportunity that has been denied by the keeper's indiscretion. I'd be inclined to ask myself if the first attacker had an OGSO when fouled by the GK.
In my mind I'd be blowing for the penalty kick and develop my thinking on the sanction against the GK from there.
Also, there's an argument that the sanction against the GK (caution or sending off) could have a bigger impact on the game than any goal scored but that's game situation dependent.
The other argument against the wait and see approach is that by doing this it could look as though you aren't doing anything and the player fouled could decide to congratulate you in a way that sees him sent off! This would mean that the team offended against could actually be worse off rather than better if you delay. I know this isn't really your concern but it would be something that could be avoided by stopping play straight away.
As this topic has now had 117 reply's. I'd say whatever you decide to do be strong, be firm and be consistent in your game of 90 minutes.
We're never going to all agree. Anything more than a two seconds is a long time on a football pitch as running at speed the average footballer (and referee) can run without the ball 7-9 metre's per second, which allows a lot of closing down if a player with the ball and advantage has to think and has an goal scoring opportunity.
We're never going to all agree. Anything more than a two seconds is a long time on a football pitch as running at speed the average footballer (and referee) can run without the ball 7-9 metre's per second, which allows a lot of closing down if a player with the ball and advantage has to think and has an goal scoring opportunity.
Sorry to disappoint you Jacko .....but I'm pretty incapable (as are all the players I referee of doing the 100m in under 11 seconds
