Yeah, I’d probably just delay the whistle to see what’s the outcome or sent him off…
One last thing, I don't understand why sometimes referee associations back a referee who has made a mistake just to save face.
This is what the head of polish ref association posted (it’s google translated, but I hope you’ll get it)
“In this situation, we find that:
- the offense of the Arka (yellow team) defender had DOGSO qualification - stopping the opponent's hand. If the judge whistled them, the decision would be a direct free kick and a red card;
- Wisła (red team) No. 9 striker had (with a fair and correct assessment of the referee) a clear situation to score a goal (he was not attacked by anyone, an empty goal, a goalkeeper near a penalty point);
- the ref clearly signaled the advantage with his hand announcing that it was realized (the Wisla team had a clear - not worse than at the moment of committing the offense - opportunity to score a goal). Realizing the benefits is not the same as the end result - scoring a goal;
- in the event that the benefit was realized and signaled by the ref, he can not "return" to the original offense, unlike the use of the "delayed whistle" technique / delaying the whistle without signaling the benefit with the hand (applies to events in penalty areas).
FINAL DECISION
The judge's conduct and the decisions taken by him are correct, in accordance with the "Game Rules" and the adopted recommendations / procedures for the use of benefits. If a goal was scored, everyone would applaud the referee. If the referee stopped the game immediately and the ball would fall into the goal, we would talk about a very serious mistake.
Tomasz Mikulski”
).
