A&H

Advantage question

Middleman

New Member
Level 4 Referee
Hypothetical question (which may or may not have happened to me recently):

Red player has the ball about 30 yards from goal and gets a shot away. As he does so, a blue defender challenges and fouls him, but not enough to warrant a card. The shot sails over the dispairing flail of the keeper and smacks the bar, flying high into the air and into the grateful arms of the goalie about 2 yards from the goal line.

Do you pull the play back for the foul as there was no advantage (ie. goal) even though we are parhaps 5 seconds or more after the offence, or does the fact that he got the shot away constitute the advantage.

My inclination is to pull back for the foul as it occured after the shot, but interested in others' views.
 
The Referee Store
I'd pull back for a foul or award a goal if the ball went in. He's been fouled as he's hit the ball so there's no advantage to play due to the balls travel.

A foul is a foul.
 
As ever with hypotheticals we need a little more detail.

Did foul affect ability to play the shot, if no , then he doesn't get another go (free kick).

If challenge was late, but not reckless in your opinion, you can still have a word with defender.

Had very similar as AR (incident was "my" end) in Womens FA Cup this season. Shot, foul, shot hit post - my referee didn't give free kick which I agreed with. Obviously attacking team wanted a free kick!

Can see logic for foul but DOES seem like getting two attempts for the price of one to me!
 
As DB said. If he gets fouled even a split second after he gets the shot away, it's still a foul or a "late challenge". :) Award the free kick.
Another way to look at it is if it had happened in the penalty area and you didn't give the penalty - there'd be uproar. ;)
 
As DB said. If he gets fouled even a split second after he gets the shot away, it's still a foul or a "late challenge". :) Award the free kick.
Another way to look at it is if it had happened in the penalty area and you didn't give the penalty - there'd be uproar. ;)

Yes I see that, but in a "normal" advantage a 'a foul is still a foul' but we don't penalise those?
 
Yes I see that, but in a "normal" advantage a 'a foul is still a foul' but we don't penalise those?

Do too. ;)
You apply advantage and if none develops, bring them back for the original offence. same as in the penalty area surely?
 
Do too. ;)
You apply advantage and if none develops, bring them back for the original offence. same as in the penalty area surely?

Yes of course, but your "a foul is a foul" I read as we must always give a foul, IF you apply the advantage we don't, that was my (clumsy!) point.
 
Nooo, a foul is a foul, of course... It's then your decision as to what you do... Blow up straight away.... wait and see if the advantage is played successfully... Or, wait, advantage played unsuccessfully and the free kick is then awarded :)

In these circumstances you've described, imo it depends when the contact was made and the affect it had on the attacking player. Did the foul have an influence on the player as he went to shoot, at the time he hit the ball or after the ball had left his feet... Obviously you can penalise the defending player without awarding a free kick, depending on the circumstances as described in my last sentence :)
 
Last edited:
Did foul affect ability to play the shot, if no , then he doesn't get another go (free kick).!

The foul is AFTER the shot so he hasn't had 2 goes.
He has had an unsuccessful shot (although you don't know it's unsuccessful until you wait a bit) and then been fouled - FREE KICK.
I'm not even sure this is technically an advantage as play isn't really continuing, you're just waiting to see if the ball ends up in net.
Once it hots the crossbar and goes up blow up for the free kick.
 
Hypothetical question (which may or may not have happened to me recently):

Red player has the ball about 30 yards from goal and gets a shot away. As he does so, a blue defender challenges and fouls him, but not enough to warrant a card. The shot sails over the dispairing flail of the keeper and smacks the bar, flying high into the air and into the grateful arms of the goalie about 2 yards from the goal line.

Do you pull the play back for the foul as there was no advantage (ie. goal) even though we are perhaps 5 seconds or more after the offence, or does the fact that he got the shot away constitute the advantage.

My inclination is to pull back for the foul as it occurred after the shot, but interested in others' views.
The answer is award the free-kick. There is NO advantage... the shot existed before the foul so awarding the free-kick does not affect the original shot. If the ball had gone out for a throw-in, you would have given the free-kick.

Let's get this straight for once - advantage should be applied when there is an "enhanced attacking potential", that is not just procession or a shot. Without the advantage, they would still have the procession or the shot from the free-kick.

This question that players get two chances is irrelevant - they do. They only get the second chance because of an illegal challenge. Without the challenge, they would not have mis-hit the pass, missed the shot, etc.

@PinnerPaul - the referee in your game was wrong. He should have awarded the free-kick - as any good assessor would have told him.
 
I was watching my Mrs' team (Red) play in a match last year, one of the Red forwards was through on goal and subject to a careless challenge just outside the penalty area as she got a shot away.

It wasn't a great shot as there wasn't alot of power behind it and it went very high so took a second or two to get there, but it did go in.

Sadly the ref had blown up almost as soon as the foul occured so the goal didn't stand, and they subsequently missed the FK.

It did make me think about what I would do if this happened in one of my games, and I guess that the best course is a shout to let the players know you've seen the foul, and then if you do pull it back for the free kick it might reduce the chance of whinging.
 
The answer is award the free-kick. There is NO advantage... the shot existed before the foul so awarding the free-kick does not affect the original shot. If the ball had gone out for a throw-in, you would have given the free-kick.

You've allowed to play continue because there was a shot going close to goal, surely the team has benefited by nearly scoring a goal?
 
I think you're getting a couple of concepts muddled together.
Whether we consider 'getting a shot off' as a means of advantage is only relevant if the foul occurs before the shot goes off. Advantage is possession plus opportunity. If a player is fouled but his team retains the ball then there's possession, and if they take a good shot there was probably opportunity (there are many scenarios were taking a shot doesn't mean advantage though, such as when they're trying to make the best of a bad position, trying to shoot while still off balance, it's a difficult ball, etc. We need to be careful to not punish attackers for doing the right thing and trying to play).
It's the question of - are we better off allowing play to continue and allow the player to make a decision, or stopping play?
When the foul occurs as/after the shot is being taken, the player hasn't had the opportunity in making a decision on what to do with the ball after the foul. They made their decision, THEN were fouled. So, unless there happens to be a good outcome anyway (goal), or the ball ends up in possession of his team with a good opportunity, then between allowing play to continue and awarding a free kick, the free kick is the best option. Because it's not the attacking team's fault that there was no good outcome.

Does that make sense?

The fact that the shot just took place means you're allowed to take a few seconds to see what the outcome is. This is you waiting to see if the advantage accrues or not.
 
You've allowed to play continue because there was a shot going close to goal, surely the team has benefited by nearly scoring a goal?
That is exactly the opposite of my point. While the shot happens , there is no advantage applied according to the LOTG. The shot was procession.....not advantage.
 
Thanks all, very interesting thread.

As they say in parliament, I think I've been "persuaded" that I am wrong in law, if it happens to me I now know what to do.

Complaining defenders will be redirected to this site!;)
 
Back
Top