Where does this 2 bites of the cherry thing come from?
It's not a long supported phrase or theme. Advantage needs a good tidying up to remove some of the ambiguity it currently has.
Long supported in literature or in the laws? Origin's a bit obscure but one definition online is "something along the lines of having a second go at something, perhaps with an underlying imputation that such a second chance is not really deserved, or that it is a bonus". In the context of LOTG, the law says the referee "allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time" and that "the decision to penalise the original offence must be taken within a few seconds", and also estimate "the chances of an immediate, promising attack".
I've no problem with the four seconds taken to decide, but in that four seconds, an immediate, promising attack had got the ball from the touchline to the edge of the penalty area, and the player in possession, under no great pressure, did not pass to one of three teammates but straight to an opponent. He'd had the advantage and had had the promising attack, which he then of his own volition messed up. *
If you want to amend the law, then I guess you'd be looking for a similar distinction to that in offside. A defender can only play an attacker onside by a deliberate pass, not from a deflection. So if the advantaged player deliberately makes a bad pass that ends the advantage, that's the end of the advantage - and no second bite with a FK.
I'd have to say there's no need for that as this is the first "second bite" decision that has outraged me since Graham Poll played advantage at the Hawthorns and the advantaged West Brom player had a clear shot at goal from the edge of the PA, missed, and still got a FK (and I think West Brom scored from the FK....) There have been one or two where I've thought City were lucky to get a second bite, but not outrageously so.
I can't be bothered rooting the video for it (yet) but in the same match there was (in these blue eyes) a foul on a City player who almost immediately lost possession under challenge and there was no FK.
[ * I did originally write coc ked up but the auto edit made it look more vulgar by turning it to ****ed up! What happens to the phrase **** a snook? Or City's claim to be the leading contender if there were cups for ****-ups? ]
.... Probably didn't help Jon Moss in this instance that his assistant had immediately flagged for the foul
I'm afraid so, that was very poor by the AR on several counts. Before flagging, the AR "must determine that the referee would not have applied the advantage if he had seen the offence" and (inter alia)
"• give his flag a slight wave back and forth (avoiding any excessive or aggressive movement)"
The flagging was excessive enough for a SFP offence!
