The Ref Stop

Advantage in Penalty Area

A few thoughts:
  • Advantage would mean the opportunity is better than the PK.
  • Sometimes a slow whistle is better than actually calling advantage—give yourself time to be sure the opportunity is better than a PK. A play on a moving ball is rarely actually a better scoring opportunity than a PK
  • In the US, old guidance was the only advantage against a PK was a goal. Guidance isn’t as clear now in the post-Advice to Referees world, but I think advantage should be close to only a goal.
  • Unless asdvantage is really clear, give the PK.
 
The Ref Stop
Unless I’m about to tap the ball over the line unopposed, I think I’d be furious with an “advantage” over a PK. If the game expects a penalty, award one.
 
On average, statically the chances of scoring a penalty is better than 7 out of 10. If I play advantage, I have to be sure they have better than 8 out of 10 chance to score, usually it has to be a tap in and no more than a second between the foul and the goal . If I give advantage twice in the PA in a game and no score, I'd have to adjust my situational evaluation. Long way between 8 out of 10 and 0 out of 2.

A slow whistle is good but make sure you don't give the attacking team two bites at the cherry. That mean the slow whistle is not to see if the attacking team scores or not, but to see how the situation develops and in the PA it should not be more than a second.
 
one said:
On average, statically the chances of scoring a penalty is better than 7 out of 10. If I play advantage, I have to be sure they have better than 8 out of 10 chance to score, usually it has to be a tap in and no more than a second between the foul and the goal . If I give advantage twice in the PA in a game and no score, I'd have to adjust my situational evaluation. Long way between 8 out of 10 and 0 out of 2.

A slow whistle is good but make sure you don't give the attacking team two bites at the cherry. That mean the slow whistle is not to see if the attacking team scores or not, but to see how the situation develops and in the PA it should not be more than a second.
Click to expand...
I've never really got the concern over "2 bites of the cherry" to be honest. If you think you've seen enough of a foul to give a penalty, it's going to be very rare that a previously excellent chance remains excellent. So to use your scale, if a foul has turned a 9/10 chance into a 4/10 chance, I've got no issue with seeing if they can still scoop in that 4/10 and then if that doesn't work, give them the 7/10 as well to do whatever is possible to restore as much of the original chance quality as possible.
 
GraemeS said:
I've never really got the concern over "2 bites of the cherry" to be honest. If you think you've seen enough of a foul to give a penalty, it's going to be very rare that a previously excellent chance remains excellent. So to use your scale, if a foul has turned a 9/10 chance into a 4/10 chance, I've got no issue with seeing if they can still scoop in that 4/10 and then if that doesn't work, give them the 7/10 as well to do whatever is possible to restore as much of the original chance quality as possible.
Click to expand...
You have made a few things up there from my post. Never said it was an excellent chance to start with. Never said it was a 9/10 chance to start with. The original chance could have been any ol'e foul anywhere in the PA. Only a small % of these are 9/10. Most fouls in PA are SPA or less, very seldom DOGSO.
Anyway lets say after the foul we have a 4/10 chance. You are either playing advantage or you are not. If you want to wait a full 'few' seconds to decide that your choice, but in the PA if you wait that long, then two passes later and they don't score and and you give a penalty you have lost the defenders for the rest of the game. LOTG is about fairness - restoring the balance after the foul. Don't over or under punish. They committed one foul in the penalty area, they should be punished with one chance of scoring a goal against them. This is either with advantage played by you because they have an excellent chance to score, or a penalty awarded. If you give them both, even if one is a 4/10 chance, you have over punished the defenders.
 
I think the key here is the "slow" whistle and waiting a couple of seconds to see what happens. If after the foul the ball is in the back of the net after a couple of seconds, no issue. If it's not then it's probably best to blow for the penalty as the better (than PK) chance of scoring is clearly not there. If you play advantage and they don't score, you can't go back and give the PK and most teams would be pretty upset that you didn't give the PK.

Remember, you should only play advantage when you know it's an advantage. The idea / concept of having to blow or play advantage immediately isn't good. See the foul, wait a second or two to see if an advantage is there, if not blow the whistle.
 
TSHudson said:
I think the key here is the "slow" whistle and waiting a couple of seconds to see what happens. If after the foul the ball is in the back of the net after a couple of seconds, no issue. If it's not then it's probably best to blow for the penalty as the better (than PK) chance of scoring is clearly not there. If you play advantage and they don't score, you can't go back and give the PK and most teams would be pretty upset that you didn't give the PK.

Remember, you should only play advantage when you know it's an advantage. The idea / concept of having to blow or play advantage immediately isn't good. See the foul, wait a second or two to see if an advantage is there, if not blow the whistle.
Click to expand...
And this is what confuses me - I don't see the distinction between what you've described (which strikes me as good sensible refereeing that I would try to do myself) and what others describe as "2 bites of the cherry" (which is considered bad).

In both situations, you see a foul, decide it's worthy of a penalty kick, deliberately play a "silent advantage" by delaying the whistle for a second or two and then if the eventual shot either doesn't go in or doesn't occur immediately, give the penalty. If it does go in, shout "Advantage", give it the big arms and grin all the way back to the half way line.
 
tumblr_nx7qpgMhBB1tznf7qo3_500.gif
 
Haha. Where was the foul committed? Either way, are we thinking because an EPL referee did it it is right? I am trying to imagine what would be said on this forum if it missed.
 
That was Mike Dean (Spurs-Villa). Outside the box, mainly linked to it for the amusing celebration giving it full beans with the advantage signal (big arms, big grin). @GraemeS knows the score. Us Gra's should stick together.
 
Grayson said:
That was Mike Dean (Spurs-Villa). Outside the box, mainly linked to it for the amusing celebration giving it full beans with the advantage signal (big arms, big grin). @GraemeS knows the score. Us Gra's should stick together.
Click to expand...
I watched a bit of the recent Sky interview with Dean.

He’s like the Klopp of referees. So enthusiastic.

When I try to explain refereeing/referees to people I try to get across just how much “we” love football to go through what we put up with. And with Dean it’s just magic how much he loves the game.
 
GraemeS said:
I don't see the distinction between what you've described (which strikes me as good sensible refereeing that I would try to do myself) and what others describe as "2 bites of the cherry" (which is considered bad).
Click to expand...

Maybe there isn't a difference and they are the same? Who knows. But I wouldn't be blowing for the penalty after I've played advantage and they've missed.
I guess to try and illustrate it, lets say attacker skips past a defender on the by line and is fouled. Rather than blowing immediately for a penalty, I'd see what happens next. If he manages to flash the ball across the goal as he falls and an attacker is there to put it in, goal. If no attacker is there, well I would then blow for a penalty (having not played advantage) as the foul prevented the attacker doing anything further with the ball than flashing it across goal. If I see the ball go across goal and an attacker is 1 foot out with a tap in and I play advantage and attacker scuffs it wide, that's the chance lost. I wouldn't bring it back for a penalty.

Now in real time, it's very difficult to assess all of that and play advantage etc. Which is why it's at most 1 - 2 seconds after the foul before I'm blowing for the penalty. Again attacker is fouled but manages to stay upright and smashes it into the top corner, goal. If it's the exact same situation but if after 1 - 2 seconds they haven't found their feet or smashed it into the top corner, I'd blow for a penalty and not play advantage just because they still had the ball.

So I don't see it as two bites, more does a better bite emerge immediately after the foul or not. I'd be less concerned about over punishing the defender than under punishing the attacker. You don't want them to have two bites of the cherry, don't commit a foul in the penalty area.
 
The BIG difference is if that you play an advantage like Mike Dean did there is a vastly higher percentage chance of a goal being scored than there is at lower levels. Although from memory I think the Mike Dean advantage started from outside the area so by no means the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top