The Ref Stop

Cant give a pen if attacker shoots.

JoeMaloney5

JoeMaloney5

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
So had a game yesterday (adults) and the attacker dribbles into box he shoots and hits crossbar but after he shoots is taken out from behind by a late slide tackle. I give pen and keeper who will later be sin binned comes running to me saying " ref he has shot so therefore you cant give him a pen you cant allow him the advantage of shooting and also getting a pen" bear in mind I never signalled advantage as there was no advantage to be had he had shot before he was taken down lol.
 
The Ref Stop
No issue here. Its always contentious awarding a pen in this situation. More so, in an advantage situation, which your wasn't so penalty sounds like a correct decision, providing the ball was still in play at the point of the foul (envisaging scenarios where the ball hits bar and goes over).
 
JamesL said:
No issue here. Its always contentious awarding a pen in this situation. More so, in an advantage situation, which your wasn't so penalty sounds like a correct decision, providing the ball was still in play at the point of the foul (envisaging scenarios where the ball hits bar and goes over).
Click to expand...
Yeah ball rebounded into play it didn't go out.
 
Penalty sounds right. Just because they’ve taken the shot doesn’t mean the defender gets a free hit on the attacker
 
If the ball is in still in play when the foul is made then penalty is fine, but you do have to think about credibility and it is always likely to be controversial.

If the ball hit the bar and went went behind, or the shot missed the target altogether then it can't be a penalty as the ball was out of play when the challenge was made. That can only be a goal kick, but you could still caution or send off for it, with the same caveat of credibility as I can guarantee it will lead to complaints (been there and done that).
 
RustyRef said:
If the ball is in still in play when the foul is made then penalty is fine, but you do have to think about credibility and it is always likely to be controversial.

If the ball hit the bar and went went behind, or the shot missed the target altogether then it can't be a penalty as the ball was out of play when the challenge was made. That can only be a goal kick, but you could still caution or send off for it, with the same caveat of credibility as I can guarantee it will lead to complaints (been there and done that).
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct @RustyRef, but isn't this credibility nonsense exactly what is wrong with modern refereeing?
An offence occurs and we feel that we should let it go because we need to be credible; if we all gave these at every level then players and Joe public would quickly learn that such decisions are credible and should be the norm.
 
Mintyref said:
Absolutely correct @RustyRef, but isn't this credibility nonsense exactly what is wrong with modern refereeing?
An offence occurs and we feel that we should let it go because we need to be credible; if we all gave these at every level then players and Joe public would quickly learn that such decisions are credible and should be the norm.
Click to expand...

Like it or not that is what is coached to referees at all levels of the game these days and it won't change. If no one is expecting a penalty they won't be giving a penalty.

And in fairness, if a referee gave a penalty when the ball had gone out of play he would be incorrect in law, so if we want to be technically correct and a stickler for law it can't be a penalty.
 
RustyRef said:
Like it or not that is what is coached to referees at all levels of the game these days and it won't change. If no one is expecting a penalty they won't be giving a penalty.

And in fairness, if a referee gave a penalty when the ball had gone out of play he would be incorrect in law, so if we want to be technically correct and a stickler for law it can't be a penalty.
Click to expand...
But we should not be afraid of applying the laws because of 'what is expected/not expected', and I never mentioned anything about a wrong in law decision......this is how we have ended up playing second fiddle to the money at the top of the game........
 
The same crediblity means you don't give a foul if the attacker didn't go down or retained posession after a careless trip. All it does is encouraging diving.

Although I think there are times you can use outcome as a consideration, this most certainly is not one of them.
 
RustyRef said:
If the ball is in still in play when the foul is made then penalty is fine, but you do have to think about credibility and it is always likely to be controversial.

If the ball hit the bar and went went behind, or the shot missed the target altogether then it can't be a penalty as the ball was out of play when the challenge was made. That can only be a goal kick, but you could still caution or send off for it, with the same caveat of credibility as I can guarantee it will lead to complaints (been there and done that).
Click to expand...
Had one in pre-season, defender went in pretty hard when the attacker shot, the shot went in and they both ended with cuts on their shins. I bottled it because they scored, it was easily reckless and probably excessive force. No complaints because it resulted in a goal, which doesn't help as if I had pulled the red out I would've been chastised by both teams.
 
JH said:
Had one in pre-season, defender went in pretty hard when the attacker shot, the shot went in and they both ended with cuts on their shins. I bottled it because they scored, it was easily reckless and probably excessive force. No complaints because it resulted in a goal, which doesn't help as if I had pulled the red out I would've been chastised by both teams.
Click to expand...
But if the attacker had missed, they'd be baying for blood. That kind of situation seems a lot like making decisions based on outcome. Aren't we meant to do it based on fact and law instead?
 
RustyRef said:
And in fairness, if a referee gave a penalty when the ball had gone out of play he would be incorrect in law, so if we want to be technically correct and a stickler for law it can't be a penalty.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you're introducing the idea of the ball going out of play (other than as a purely academic exercise) - the OP is about a situation where the ball remained in play.
 
Nij said:
But if the attacker had missed, they'd be baying for blood. That kind of situation seems a lot like making decisions based on outcome. Aren't we meant to do it based on fact and law instead?
Click to expand...
If he'd have missed, I'd have pointed to the spot, no doubt. Like I said, I bottled the sanction because it went in.
 
Nij said:
That kind of situation seems a lot like making decisions based on outcome. Aren't we meant to do it based on fact and law instead?
Click to expand...
Law does not always required or is applicable to facts. Sometimes they are based on opinions and opinions are can be formed based on outcome. For example the exact same borderline tackle that is usually given as a yellow easily turns to a red if it breaks a leg.

Or another example is how game management is taught. Two players face off, team mates quickly separate them and you can usually manage the incident with a public bollocking. If it leads to a mass confrontation, usually you caution them both. Again decision is based on outcome but it is what is taught as best practice because it works in game control.
 
Tealeaf said:
“The foul stopped him getting the rebound”.
Click to expand...

Just "the foul occured" would be enough, of course. The question is: did the defender commit a foul against the attacker inside the penalty area? If the answer is yes, it is a pen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top