Advantage question

[RefereeingBooks]

Have to admit there was an occasion in the past where I allowed play to continue after stonewall spot kick foul. Attacker gets taken out by defender, ball rolls perfectly for attacker's team mate who had an open goal and stuffed it wide. Gave the goal kick, somewhat surprisingly, not a single complaint about not giving the penalty, even from the player fouled, possibly because they were all too stunned that their team mate had missed a simple chance. Did I do the right thing? We will never know, but fortunately not had another incident similar since...

Posted this in another forum earlier this year, an interesting incident involving "advantage"...

Watching one of my son's u12s games earlier this season, a young referee aged around 16 took charge of the game and the home "assistant" was an FA appointed referee's mentor. During the first half, away team defender hits a hopeful ball forward, home defender and away attacker chase the ball. Home keeper races out his area and palms the ball away, assistant's (mentor) flag goes up immediately, but play continues. A brief game of pinball results in the attacker gaining possession and sticking the ball in the back of the net. The time between the keeper handling and the ball finding the back of the net was only a few seconds, none of the players stopped for the flag and there was definitely no whistle or advantage signalled. The referee goes to award the goal, but notices the assistants flag. Assistant shouts over that he flagged for the keeper's handball and not offside. The referee then pulled play back for an attacking free kick. Away manager and several players question why he didn't allow the advantage and give the goal as he hadn't whistled. His response was "the linesman gave the decision".

Did the referee's age and lack of experience count against him in his decision to pull the play back and not over-rule the original flag? Did he even realise it was his right to over-rule if he felt necessary? Maybe the mentor could also have helped him a bit more by realising the advantage and lowered his flag when the ball went in and advised the referee accordingly?

As for the first situation: I guess you didn't do the right thing, because no one complained ;-)

As for the second situation: I cannot look inside the ref's head but it sure looks like he was persuaded by the mentor's apparent experience or seniority to disallow the goal. Interesting advantage situation, though. Reminiscent of the Arsenal-Barcelona final when Lehmann fouled Eto'o and the ball was then netted by another Barcelona player, only to be disallowed because of Lehmann's foul. Lehmann was sent off, but the ensuing free kick was missed. Would Lehmann still have been sent off if the ref had allowed advantage and the goal? Interesting question. I do hope ref Terje Hauge will publish his memoirs some day. (Very selfish purpose: just want the book for my collection )

 

[Ryan Owens]

Defender commits a foul on an attacker in the box (not DOGSO) but the ball runs to an attacker who is through one-on-one with the keeper, do you:=

1. Play advantage and run the risk of the attacker not scoring?
2. Blow for a penalty?

Wait 2-3 seconds to see what happens and then make my choice.

 

[Ganajin]

This "two bites at the Cherry" myth always bugs me. A player is running at keeper., Defender fouls him from behind. He manages to keep his feet, retain control, and shoots wide. Several of you guys said "I won't reward his poor shot with a second bite at the cherry". But wait a moment...it may look to you as though he had full control again, but you are not in his head. Perhaps he has twinges in his leg from the foul that make him mess up. Perhaps his head is very slightly woozy. Perhaps he is in dread of a second foul that might injure him and tenses up. There is absolutely no way to be SURE that this chance is as good as what he might have had if he hadn't been fouled. So if he misses his shot...give the penalty. And if anyone yells at me that I'm giving him a second bite, I point out that THEY gave him the second bite by committing a foul. Advantage is not a bonus...it's an attempt to avoid penalizing a team because the defense broke the laws of the game. And I concur with the method we are taught in Australia...NEVER call advantage in the PA...just wait and see what happens.

 

[Darius]

Put simply....

The main reason you would give an advantage in the penalty area is to avoid having to make a decision which would normally result in a dismissal.

Don't want to sound like @Padfoot but do your job properly ;-)

 

[Ganajin]

The main reason you would give an advantage in the penalty area is to avoid having to make a decision which would normally result in a dismissal.

Absolutely disagree. The main reason you give advantage in the PA is to allow the attackers the chance to score if they can. If they can't...penalty

 

[SM]

Had an interesting one Saturday. Ball wide to the left of goal. Attacker gets in a cross just as a very slightly late challenge comes in from a defender. Clear foul.

The ball, however, is in flight across the 6 yard line, no attacker can get to it, but it's close. Ball runs off towards the other touchline.

I am standing on the spot of the foul and bring it back for the freekick. It's been a second or so before I bring the game back. The offending defender put his hands up and apologises. Little bit of moaning from the other defenders but nothing I am worried about and shu them away without issue.

One genius does moan "you wouldn't have brought it back if they had scored!" No mate, that would be the very definition of a great advantage.

Assessor picked me up on this though. Said I should have blown for the foul straight away regardless of balls movement across the goal.

Thoughts?

 

[Darius]

Disappointed to hear you were criticised for that. Right thing to do along with a loud shout of 'No advantage'

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Had an interesting one Saturday. Ball wide to the left of goal. Attacker gets in a cross just as a very slightly late challenge comes in from a defender. Clear foul.

The ball, however, is in flight across the 6 yard line, no attacker can get to it, but it's close. Ball runs off towards the other touchline.

I am standing on the spot of the foul and bring it back for the freekick. It's been a second or so before I bring the game back. The offending defender put his hands up and apologises. Little bit of moaning from the other defenders but nothing I am worried about and shu them away without issue.

One genius does moan "you wouldn't have brought it back if they had scored!" No mate, that would be the very definition of a great advantage.

Assessor picked me up on this though. Said I should have blown for the foul straight away regardless of balls movement across the goal.

Thoughts?

You should either have blown or indicated immediately that you were playing advantage. What you did (initially) was make it look like you hadn't seen the foul.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

This "two bites at the Cherry" myth always bugs me. A player is running at keeper., Defender fouls him from behind. He manages to keep his feet, retain control, and shoots wide. Several of you guys said "I won't reward his poor shot with a second bite at the cherry". But wait a moment...it may look to you as though he had full control again, but you are not in his head. Perhaps he has twinges in his leg from the foul that make him mess up. Perhaps his head is very slightly woozy. Perhaps he is in dread of a second foul that might injure him and tenses up. There is absolutely no way to be SURE that this chance is as good as what he might have had if he hadn't been fouled. So if he misses his shot...give the penalty. And if anyone yells at me that I'm giving him a second bite, I point out that THEY gave him the second bite by committing a foul. Advantage is not a bonus...it's an attempt to avoid penalizing a team because the defense broke the laws of the game. And I concur with the method we are taught in Australia...NEVER call advantage in the PA...just wait and see what happens.

As referees we can only act on what we can see. If he looks like he has recovered and has every opportunity for control. then that's what we base our decision on. Simply going back to the foul automatically if he misses is completely against the LOTG.

Fact remains, when there's a potential advantage in the PA you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[SM]

Disappointed to hear you were criticised for that. Right thing to do along with a loud shout of 'No advantage'

He was a great assessor in many ways, just to add some balance. Aside from the above, his feedback was easily the best and most thorough I have ever experienced.

He did rightly pick me up on 2, what turned out to be poor, advantage shouts earlier in the game. bloody crystal ball let me down!

You should either have blown or indicated immediately that you were playing advantage. What you did (initially) was make it look like you hadn't seen the foul.

I see what your saying, but that wasn't the case with this one. I continued my run as the ball was crossed to the spot of the foul. When the whistle came (quickly), nobody contested the fact it was a foul. Just that they believed that the attackers had taken the advantage.

The debrief was simple - shouldn't have played advantage regardless. Which to me meant "possibly" ruling out a goal.

Of course if the ball flies in the back of the net, best advantage ever ref!

 

[Padfoot]

This "two bites at the Cherry" myth always bugs me. A player is running at keeper., Defender fouls him from behind. He manages to keep his feet, retain control, and shoots wide. Several of you guys said "I won't reward his poor shot with a second bite at the cherry". But wait a moment...it may look to you as though he had full control again, but you are not in his head. Perhaps he has twinges in his leg from the foul that make him mess up. Perhaps his head is very slightly woozy. Perhaps he is in dread of a second foul that might injure him and tenses up. There is absolutely no way to be SURE that this chance is as good as what he might have had if he hadn't been fouled. So if he misses his shot...give the penalty. And if anyone yells at me that I'm giving him a second bite, I point out that THEY gave him the second bite by committing a foul. Advantage is not a bonus...it's an attempt to avoid penalizing a team because the defense broke the laws of the game. And I concur with the method we are taught in Australia...NEVER call advantage in the PA...just wait and see what happens.

By your logic then we would never ever play advantage anywhere on the pitch.....because we couldn't be certain what was going through the mind of the fouled player........

 

[RefereeingBooks]

As referees we can only act on what we can see. If he looks like he has recovered and has every opportunity for control. then that's what we base our decision on. Simply going back to the foul automatically if he misses is completely against the LOTG.

Fact remains, when there's a potential advantage in the PA you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I wholeheartedly agree. If a player is determined enough to recover quickly, get his composure and aim for goal, it looks like there is a definite advantage. As a ref, you're then in a position to give that advantage, or not. That's entirely up to you. But once you give that advantage on the basis of what you see and it comes to nothing, you cannot go back on it. Ever. It may be a tough sell, but when you bite the cherry, you can only swallow it. There's no way you can stick it back on.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Had an interesting one Saturday. Ball wide to the left of goal. Attacker gets in a cross just as a very slightly late challenge comes in from a defender. Clear foul.

The ball, however, is in flight across the 6 yard line, no attacker can get to it, but it's close. Ball runs off towards the other touchline.

I am standing on the spot of the foul and bring it back for the freekick. It's been a second or so before I bring the game back. The offending defender put his hands up and apologises. Little bit of moaning from the other defenders but nothing I am worried about and shu them away without issue.

One genius does moan "you wouldn't have brought it back if they had scored!" No mate, that would be the very definition of a great advantage.

Assessor picked me up on this though. Said I should have blown for the foul straight away regardless of balls movement across the goal.

Thoughts?

Assessor is dead wrong on that one (I assume he was speaking categorically, rather than saying 'there was never a chance' on that particular incident). Sounds like you did the right thing.

 

[McTavish]

If he looks like he has recovered and has every opportunity for control. then that's what we base our decision on. Simply going back to the foul automatically if he misses is completely against the LOTG.

I think that the LOTG are more flexible in this instance. The law says that 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
If a player is fouled in the PA then the only reason that you would not blow is if you believe that the player will be able to score - not just that he will be able to get off a shot. If the player doesn't score then the anticipated advantage has not ensued and so the original offence should be penalised - a PK should be awarded.This is not "two bites of the cherry" , it is waiting to see if the team offended against will benefit from the advantage (ie score a goal) and if they don't going back to the original offence.

 

[Ganajin]

By your logic then we would never ever play advantage anywhere on the pitch.....because we couldn't be certain what was going through the mind of the fouled player........

Actually what I am saying is play advantage whenever you can, and if after a few seconds it does not materialise (ie in a goal), give the original free kick. This is fully allowed by the LOTG, and in fact McTavish above explains it far better than me.

 

[Ganajin]

As referees we can only act on what we can see. If he looks like he has recovered and has every opportunity for control. then that's what we base our decision on. Simply going back to the foul automatically if he misses is completely against the LOTG.

Fact remains, when there's a potential advantage in the PA you're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

As I try to explain above going back to the foul if he misses is EXACTLY what the LOTG suggest. I think many of you are still considering Advantage as it used to be implemented, once given, no going back. That's not what the Laws now suggest.

 

[xPositor]

Seguing slightly, game on Sunday. Attacker with ball about 10 metres in to oppositions half. Cries of foul from the touchline as a defender comes in, just as another player crosses my line of sight. Didn't see it, can't give it - attacker still on his feet, so shout loudly "keep going, keep going" (with no raised arms). Attacker manages to take it past the next defender and scores. Manager shouts loudly to me "Thanks ref, that was a great advantage". No problem, thank-you very much! (If I had have seen it, I would have probably blown, as to me there was no clear advantage anyway, but I'll take credit where I can!).

 

[Markt]

If the player doesn't score then the anticipated advantage has not ensued and so the original offence should be penalised - a PK should be awarded. This is not "two bites of the cherry" , it is waiting to see if the team offended against will benefit from the advantage (ie score a goal) and if they don't going back to the original offence.

The advantage is the opportunity to score NOT the goal itself. If the player misses his shot then he has had the opportunity and the advantage has been played. When the law states "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" this does not mean that a goal has to be scored for them to benefit, but that they must be at least as well off as they would be had the foul not been committed.
In the case of a foul in the penalty area, any player who subsequently receives the ball must have at least as good a chance of scoring as the player who was fouled for there to be any chance of an advantage accruing. This is unlikely so the most advantageous result is a free kick at the goal with the goalkeeper on the line and all other players 10 yards behind the ball.

For this reason you should be very wary about playing advantage following a defensive foul in the penalty area, and should only do so if the attacker will definitely score. He should be almost between the uprights with no defenders around him when he receives the ball (and obviously not in an offside position!). If he then misses then that's the advantage over. You can't then call the play back and award the PK.

If this were not the case then every week Referees on the professional leagues would be delaying the award of a penalty kick for several seconds to see what resulted before they made their mind up, knowing that they could always come back to the PK should the chance be missed.

 

[Beezer]

Having read all 5 pages of comments and opinions on this subject , my opinion hasn't changed .
if you see a foul in the penalty area ....give it instantly . and sanction accordingly because if the striker runs on and scores (or misses) you can no longer send off the defender for DOGSO, leaving the attacking team disadvantaged by your decision .

As a player I would take a penalty and a sending off over a goal and a yellow all day long !

We as referees must acknowledge where a true "Advantage " occurs ? and for me its not in the Penalty Area .

 

[Darius]

Going to play devils advocate....

Two attackers are through on goal, the one with the ball goes round keeper in the area but is fouled. Ball rolls 5 yards in front of other attacker, who can easily decide to tap it in to an empty net.

Do you blow instantly, send keeper off and have a penalty. Do you wait for attacker to slot it in?

So this raises 2 questions, firstly is this actually DOGSO because attacker 2 still has the opportunity to score. So do you only caution at most?

Secondly what would you do if attacker 2 refused to tap it in, because he knew you'd have to send keeper off?!

This one could be fun haha....