Rare Penalty/Advantage Scenario

Had an interesting scenario in my game this weekend and I'm hoping someone can help find a clip of a previous time this has happened.

Striker is one on one with the keeper in the box, takes the ball round him and gets fouled by the keeper. The loose ball instantly drops to another striker who immediately shoots at the open goal and misses the target. I then give the penalty. Offending team couldn't understand why I was allowing 'two bites of the cherry' etc etc and I had to explain that I never technically played advantage and that the law states we can allow play to continue after an offence and then penalise the offence if the anticipated advantage doesn't occur within a few seconds etc etc (they eventually accepted it).

Can anyone recall if this exact scenario has happened in a premier league (or other professional game before) as I'd love to find a clip of it happening in a professional game. Ty in advance

Can't help you with a clip but I can share my opinion.

Technically you did nothing wrong. But from the description it actually was two bytes at the cherry and the attackers got the rub of the green on that decision.
A better process would have been to quickly call advantage if the shot opportunity was clearly better than a penalty. Then accept the outcome of the shot. If it wasn't then blow the whistle quick and give the penalty. Any doubt, give the penalty before the shot is taken.

one said:

Can't help you with a clip but I can share my opinion.

Technically you did nothing wrong. But from the description it actually was two bytes at the cherry and the attackers got the rub of the green on that decision.
A better process would have been to quickly call advantage if the shot opportunity was clearly better than a penalty. Then accept the outcome of the shot. If it wasn't then blow the whistle quick and give the penalty. Any doubt, give the penalty before the shot is taken.

Click to expand...

I hear you. Only thing I would say is that the time between the foul, the shot and it going wide was genuinely about one second (two at most!) so hard to make a call in such a big moment about whether the chance is better than the penalty with such little time between incidents. For what its worth, the observer fully backed it

There's plenty of coaching at higher levels that will support your action and I'm not surprised that the Observer backed you.

That said, I'm strongly of the opinion that this is not the best course of action. As referees, our #1 priority is player safety, #2 is fairness to both teams. In this context, it doesn't seem reasonable to allow the attacking team two OGSOs. We don't / shouldn't normally bring back play for a FK if the attacking team make a mess of things for no good reason. The OP is almost the ultimate version of this.

If the defending team don’t want to face a potential penalty, don’t foul the opposition in your own box.

I had a similar situation a couple of weeks ago, in terms of the timing of events, though it was not an OGSO / open goal.
Attacker fouled outside the box, ball immediately went to a team mate close by who struck it first time wildly high and wide.

I had not signalled advantage and decided to penalise the foul and award the free kick, to some complaints from the defending team. My justification was that the shot was uncontrolled and not an actual advantage, which feels right to me.

If the team mate had taken a touch and still missed then it would have probably felt more like a wasted advantage rather than a non-advantage. As it was, it seemed the team mate felt under pressure to shoot immediately and this led to the lack of control / lack of advantage.

Russell Jones said:

As referees, our #1 priority is player safety, #2 is fairness to both teams. In this context, it doesn't seem reasonable to allow the attacking team two OGSOs. We don't / shouldn't normally bring back play for a FK if the attacking team make a mess of things for no good reason. The OP is almost the ultimate version of this.

Click to expand...

I see no problem with giving two bites at the cherry after an offence. Had the defender not fouled there would have been only one bite; the second chance is the punishment for fouling.

There are places in the Laws too where the two bites idea is clearly indicated. If while taking a penalty the defending keeper rushes out from his goal line before the ball is kicked, the Laws expressly tell us to let the kick go ahead: if the player scores it is a goal; if he kicks it against the keeper he gets a retake. Two bites of the cherry expressly sanctioned in the Laws.

Moreover in the OP we learn the attacker missing the shot all happened in less than a second. It seems to me a brief grab at a shot with no thinking time is hardly comparable to a penalty, hence there was no advantage.

Ganajin said:

Moreover in the OP we learn the attacker missing the shot all happened in less than a second. It seems to me a brief grab at a shot with no thinking time is hardly comparable to a penalty, hence there was no advantage.

Click to expand...

Had the foul been made by a defender then, assuming a rushed shot towards a goal guarded by a keeper, I'd totally agree with you.

However, in the OP, it was the GK committing the foul. And the striker has then missed an open goal. If, as seems likely, this was genuinely a better opportunity to score than the alternative penalty, then the miss is on the attacker.

More generally, the punishment for fouling is the FK / PK. With sanctions as required to deal with the physical / tactical nature of the foul. Rather than an additional OGSO as a 'freebie'