Advantage question

[CapnBloodbeard]

Given how fired up the defending team has gotten when I have gone back to the foul after a shot, I strongly disagree that 'nobody will be talking about it' (though that shouldn't be what defines a decision, of course). It's a myth of the game that 'shot equals advantage', and even a lot of referees perpetuate that myth.

Good to know this goes on the list of decisions people make because what's easier. I thought the LOTG and the intent of the laws / fairness were supposed to be the primary tools in making decisions, with 'easy sell' helping us pick those borderline decisions.

People are going to whinge at you no matter what you do. At least if you know you made the fairest decision then you can back yourself up. Can't really do that if all you wanted to do was have as peaceful a run to your evening pint but people abused your 'easy' decision anyway.

Not criticising you personally Jacko, just this pervasive refereeing philosophy.

 

[SM]

Even if you haven't shouted advantage that doesn't mean you can't still let the shot go.

If it was a fair shot that was in no way disadvantaged by the initial foul, then how is it fair to award the penalty because he missed the shot? That's not what the advantage clause is for. Arguing about whether or not advantage is being called is a debate on whether you technically can go back. Of course you could make either decision within the laws. The debate is whether you should, not whether you can.

It's all shades of grey here. 2 examples -

- corner of the penalty area, foul by the keeper on an onrushing attacker. Ball lands at the feet of another attacker but he is wide and closer to the goaline, but with an open goal? He wants to shoot?

- Foul in the six yard box, ball rolls to another attacker who has a tap in?

And the million of so other possibilities in between. Shades of grey.

Each scenario is different. Different positions, different players, different game conditions. You cannot give a definitive answer, black and white, to an Internet posted, drawn with words scenario.

No matter how passionately you believe you are right and others are wrong.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Hi SM,
You're right that there are shades of grey, and I certainly wouldn't say that I'd never go back to the shot.

I once had a scenario where a keeper was a bit out of position with an attacker running in. He was fouled, but kept his feet. However, that stumble cost him a bit of time. He fully regained his balance, there was no question of control, wasn't forced to rush the kick, but he took the shot and it was saved by the keeper. I went back to the foul. Why? Because the time wasted in him regaining his balance allowed the keeper to move into a better position. So the attacker held possession, but the opportunity was always inferior to what it had at the time of the foul or what a free kick would have been. I held the whistle in case he was able to make something out of his poor opportunity, but he didn't - and that was due to the foul (In Australia, we're not allowed to call advantage until after the advantage has materialised, and once we call it we can't go back).

 

[SM]

That sounds like good refereeing to me.

 

[Padfoot]

The problem is exacerbated by the ridiculous requirement to bellow out 'advantage' the second you decide there might be an advantage then make yourself look an absolute pillock when it doesn't materialise......

Just delay the signal and shout until it has actually accrued then you avoid such complicated what ifs.....

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

That's the Australian approach, although that doesn't necessarily make it too different. Eg clean shot gets off before I can call advantage, if I'm happy that the shot is advantage then I'm not going to pull it back just because I haven't made the shout. Personally, I'll sometimes signal but not verbalise simply because I don't want to risk baulking the player.

 

[SM]

Funnily enough I had one yesterday. Attacker about 10 yards from goal gets the ball, turns past a stranded defender who fouls him. The attacker keeps his balance and runs to the edge of the area (2 yards to the right of the penalty spot) and has a clear shot with 2 defenders closing down either side but still too far for any kind of challenge. He has full balance and shoots straight at the keeper before turning and asking for the foul.

You took the advantage, I'm not giving you a second bite of the cherry fella.

I never say the phrase "second bite of the cherry" - I blame this thread!

 

[Beezer]

Over the last few years of playing advantage in the penalty area I have come to the conclusion that the best option is to give the penalty before any advantage happens. saves so much hassle IMO....... defence will accept it ....attacking team get a free hit from 12 yards and you wont have to explain the usual 2 bites at the cherry stuff !!

Working for me at the moment ..not trying to be too clever with advantages as players really don't get it .

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The flip side is that if the attacker scores while you're holding the whistle, then the best outcome has been reached without you having to intervene and upset the defence with a penalty!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

 

[Beezer]

just gotta be really quick on the whistle .....

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It'll still happen.

 

[SM]

Reminds me of a phrase from roadhouse.

Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.

Or

To be a good referee, you gotta ride your luck sometimes and make the best of the cards the game deals you.

 

[RefereeingBooks]

This is a tough question to answer generally. You really need to be there and assess the specific situation taking into account the nature of the foul, players position etc. For a referee it can be a no win situation as someone will feel you should have made the opposite decision. I had this type of incident in a game last year. Striker was fouled around the penalty spot but managed to stay on his feet albeit a little off balance. The defending players were well out of position so I signalled advantage, striker regained his balance and sliced it wide from 10 yards, goal kick awarded. I think he realised it was his mistake and was too embarassed to complain. Luckily the game was over by this point and we were able to discuss it sensibly after the match.

I had this very same situation this Saturday in an U17 match. Striker is fouled, tumbles but rights himself immediately (before I had a chance to blow for a penalty kick so I signal advantage), manages to get his balance and then shoots way wide with only the keeper before him. Nobody complained I had not given the penalty, only berating the striker for getting up. After the match ended, I asked him why he got up, as I would have awarded a penalty kick. He said he so much wanted to score that goal he thought of nothing else. So I agree with those here replying that if you give the advantage and it is not used, you don't award the penalty after all.

 

[RefereeingBooks]

Funnily enough I had one yesterday. Attacker about 10 yards from goal gets the ball, turns past a stranded defender who fouls him. The attacker keeps his balance and runs to the edge of the area (2 yards to the right of the penalty spot) and has a clear shot with 2 defenders closing down either side but still too far for any kind of challenge. He has full balance and shoots straight at the keeper before turning and asking for the foul.

You took the advantage, I'm not giving you a second bite of the cherry fella.

I never say the phrase "second bite of the cherry" - I blame this thread!

If you can't eat a cherry in one bite, you don't deserve the cherry ;-)

 

[Beezer]

It'll still happen.

Now and again it possibly will ....if it happens in the time it takes me to blow up and the player misses ....I will sell it as no advantage and come back for the Penalty ......I have argued many times on here about the same thing ( sorry debated ) a free kick of a static ball from 12 yards is more of an advantage than having to hit a moving ball with a keeper running at you !! but I still find..... after taking some forum advice blowing for the pen nice and quick is a winner and removes the need to explain why your pulling it back after someone misses

 

[Beezer]

I had this very same situation this Saturday in an U17 match. Striker is fouled, tumbles but rights himself immediately (before I had a chance to blow for a penalty kick so I signal advantage), manages to get his balance and then shoots way wide with only the keeper before him. Nobody complained I had not given the penalty, only berating the striker for getting up. After the match ended, I asked him why he got up, as I would have awarded a penalty kick. He said he so much wanted to score that goal he thought of nothing else. So I agree with those here replying that if you give the advantage and it is not used, you don't award the penalty after all.

Basically then you have penalised the attacker for attempting to score ...if a fouled player had the laws of the game on his side and knows the penalty was coming no matter what the outcome of the advantage the it may well eradicate DIVING from the lovely game ? just an observation

 

[RefereeingBooks]

I don't think I penalised the striker. He had a good chance at goal, I allowed him to finish that chance, which he - in full control of his skills - then proceeded to miss. If in another area of the pitch you play advantage, the player after a few seconds looking around, gives a pass that is way off the mark, you also award a free kick after all? I've always stuck to the rule that if a player, through his own ineptitude or lack of skill, fails to take advantage of the advantage allowed him, it's tough luck. And it's as CapnBloodbeard and others have said: sometimes you get away with it, other times you don't.
One more thing I don't think has been mentioned in this thread: players aren't stupid. If throughout the match you as a ref show that you like to let play flow and don't stop play for every little infringement but rather play the advantage, they catch on quickly. Then they won't stop and wait for the whistle at every perceived foul; no, they get on with play. It makes the impact of an actual blow of your whistle that much greater.

 

[Beezer]

I don't think I penalised the striker. He had a good chance at goal, I allowed him to finish that chance, which he - in full control of his skills - then proceeded to miss. If in another area of the pitch you play advantage, the player after a few seconds looking around, gives a pass that is way off the mark, you also award a free kick after all? I've always stuck to the rule that if a player, through his own ineptitude or lack of skill, fails to take advantage of the advantage allowed him, it's tough luck. And it's as CapnBloodbeard and others have said: sometimes you get away with it, other times you don't.
One more thing I don't think has been mentioned in this thread: players aren't stupid. If throughout the match you as a ref show that you like to let play flow and don't stop play for every little infringement but rather play the advantage, they catch on quickly. Then they won't stop and wait for the whistle at every perceived foul; no, they get on with play. It makes the impact of an actual blow of your whistle that much greater.

I am 100% not knocking how you do things ......over the last 8 years I have tried the penalty advantage debate all ways
I have taken and given advice and even amongst our own pool of referees there is disagreement over the best way to play it.

Defending teams never think a penalty is right its always either "soft " or its "ruined the game " or its "a **** decision " and so on

I have given 5 this season and they have all been wrong

as said previously every situation is different but I find ...playing an advantage and the player missing then I call it back for pen ...generally causes a couple of cards for dissent at least (though I have no problem doing it )

VERDICT ..........NEEDLESS HASSLE

giving the penalty instantly and any sanction that may follow .........and a free controlled hit from 12 yards out

VERDICT ........EASY , FAIR , VERY HIGH SUCCESS RATE OF A GOAL ?

allow the advantage , the player misses and a goal kick is given or he squares the ball and his mate misses ?

VERDICT........UNFAIR ON THE ATTACKING TEAM ,FAR TO MANY SENARIOS THAT ARE LESS LIKELY OF RESULTING IN A GOAL THAN A PENALTY .
I'm gonna stick with the middle option for now , with option 1 if I'm feeling lucky but no3 will not be happening on my pitch as I think its unfair

 

[RefereeingBooks]

I am 100% not knocking how you do things ......over the last 8 years I have tried the penalty advantage debate all ways
I have taken and given advice and even amongst our own pool of referees there is disagreement over the best way to play it.

Defending teams never think a penalty is right its always either "soft " or its "ruined the game " or its "a **** decision " and so on

I have given 5 this season and they have all been wrong

as said previously every situation is different but I find ...playing an advantage and the player missing then I call it back for pen ...generally causes a couple of cards for dissent at least (though I have no problem doing it )

VERDICT ..........NEEDLESS HASSLE

giving the penalty instantly and any sanction that may follow .........and a free controlled hit from 12 yards out

VERDICT ........EASY , FAIR , VERY HIGH SUCCESS RATE OF A GOAL ?

allow the advantage , the player misses and a goal kick is given or he squares the ball and his mate misses ?

VERDICT........UNFAIR ON THE ATTACKING TEAM ,FAR TO MANY SENARIOS THAT ARE LESS LIKELY OF RESULTING IN A GOAL THAN A PENALTY .
I'm gonna stick with the middle option for now , with option 1 if I'm feeling lucky but no3 will not be happening on my pitch as I think its unfair

Thanks for your elaboration. Like yourself, I'm not knocking your strategy for handling advantage in the penalty area. In fact, it looks very reasonable and not unlike my own. As reminded a few times in this thread, every situation is different and as a ref you subconsciously take a million factors and circumstances into consideration when such a situation occurs. And they all affect your decision. So while I tend to follow your guidelines, I may depart from them depending on circumstances. I've found in 28 years of reffing that as long as I'm consistent during the match in giving or denying advantage, the close calls are accepted much more readily.

We're all refs and we all have different outlooks on life in general and footy in particular. We have to allow for these differences, it makes life and footy more colourful, interesting and enjoyable. And that applies even more to refs

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Basically then you have penalised the attacker for attempting to score ...if a fouled player had the laws of the game on his side and knows the penalty was coming no matter what the outcome of the advantage the it may well eradicate DIVING from the lovely game ? just an observation

I don't agree that the attacker was penalised for attempting to score at all. He maintained possession and opportunity, tried to keep playing and lost it on his own. Awarding the penalty would be rewarding him for missing the shot.
If he tried to take the shot while still off balance then you'd go back to the penalty.

Personally, I think what encourages diving is fouls that affect a player's progress but don't flatten him that aren't penalised. In this case, in the end the player wasn't disadvantaged by the foul.