Foul inside penalty area

[Romarque]

Good day members

I just have a quick question and need some clarity.

Attacking player is heading towards and enters penalty area. Defender makes a tackle from behind and makes contact with attacker, who don’t fall. Referee plays advantage and attacker continues towards goal. He takes a shot and fails to score.

My question is: is it better to play advantage or should you stop and award a penalty?

 

[Viridis1886]

Should I have given a penalty?

Mazy run from midfielder who managed to ride a couple of tackles. Coming in from the right hand side of the penalty area, defender steps across his path with a slight knock on the thigh. Again he manages to keep his balance and get a shot away which is knocked away by the keeper. I didn't give...

refchat.co.uk

 

[goiko]

Good day members

I just have a quick question and need some clarity.

Attacking player is heading towards and enters penalty area. Defender makes a tackle from behind and makes contact with attacker, who don’t fall. Referee plays advantage and attacker continues towards goal. He takes a shot and fails to score.

My question is: is it better to play advantage or should you stop and award a penalty?

If I was convinced it was a foul (rather than just "contact"), then both. Ideally I'd have the whistle to my mouth but be waiting a couple of seconds in case the player scored anyway. Then if he didn't I'd then give the penalty. Hopefully my reasoning would be clear to all. It's worked for me in the past. Do you think it would have worked for you in this case?

 

[one]

Foul in PA, blow it immediately unless the ball is rolling/being tapped into an empty net. You may still get a bit of complain from the attacking team despite giving them a penalty, but nowhere near as much as not getting a pen as well as no goal from an advantage you played.

 

[BCMilan]

Foul in PA, blow it immediately unless the ball is rolling/being tapped into an empty net. You may still get a bit of complain from the attacking team despite giving them a penalty, but nowhere near as much as not getting a pen as well as no goal from an advantage you played.

I would say you've been way too quick to blow for a pen. By the sounds of it, it's run to a striker who got a shot away. I prefer Goiko's approach, or a least let the player have a shot (what if he scores, and you've already pointed to the spot).

 

[socal lurker]

Foul in PA, blow it immediately unless the ball is rolling/being tapped into an empty net. You may still get a bit of complain from the attacking team despite giving them a penalty, but nowhere near as much as not getting a pen as well as no goal from an advantage you played.

In my view, this is really a "it depends" topic. If it's a bad foul with no chance of a shot coming, by all means blow immediately and sell the call. If it's less clear, a patient whistle, and if a goal isn't right there, call the PK. But it is, IMO, a shorter wait than for potential advantage elsewhere--it's being patient to make sure there isn't an immediate goal.

 

[Kent Ref]

This happened to me on Sunday.

I saw a foul but took 2 seconds to think about it.

Defending team decided i was playing advantage and were furious.

One sin bin and a goal later we got in with it.

As others have said blow straight away unless an open goal scenario to avoid frustration - or in my case make a quicker decision!

 

[OldNavyRef]

Would be interesting to know what the higher level guys think on this.

I agree with the majority above, wait two/three seconds just to see if the ball is rifled in the net, if within those two/three seconds the ball isn't in the net blow for a penalty.

However, I understand that if the attack fire off an amazing shot and keeper wonder saves the ball, there will be chaos if you then blow for a penalty and essentially giving the attack two bites at the cherry.

 

[GraemeS]

If the attack fire off a wonderful shot that required a remarkable save, I think you can comfortably call that an advantage and not give the penalty.

The trick is not giving the advantage if the shot is poor because of the foul. I've seen penalties not given because the attacker managed to keep their feet or the ball breaks to a less-clear attacker and a poor shot results. That's weak refereeing - there's no advantage there and the penalty should be given. In the moment, it can be hard to determine what is a "good enough" shot to deserve the advantage, but all referees benefit if we perpetuate the idea that trying to stay on your feet and get a shot off can still result in a penalty - it disincentivises diving.

 

[Kent Ref]

If the attack fire off a wonderful shot that required a remarkable save, I think you can comfortably call that an advantage and not give the penalty.

The trick is not giving the advantage if the shot is poor because of the foul. I've seen penalties not given because the attacker managed to keep their feet or the ball breaks to a less-clear attacker and a poor shot results. That's weak refereeing - there's no advantage there and the penalty should be given. In the moment, it can be hard to determine what is a "good enough" shot to deserve the advantage, but all referees benefit if we perpetuate the idea that trying to stay on your feet and get a shot off can still result in a penalty - it disincentivises diving.

That's good advice.

I often say "the player didn't go down but it's still a foul.".

Sometimes in the PA i have, on the rare occasion, played the advantage in my head but no shout it just to see what happens.

 

[OldNavyRef]

If the attack fire off a wonderful shot that required a remarkable save, I think you can comfortably call that an advantage and not give the penalty.

The trick is not giving the advantage if the shot is poor because of the foul. I've seen penalties not given because the attacker managed to keep their feet or the ball breaks to a less-clear attacker and a poor shot results. That's weak refereeing - there's no advantage there and the penalty should be given. In the moment, it can be hard to determine what is a "good enough" shot to deserve the advantage, but all referees benefit if we perpetuate the idea that trying to stay on your feet and get a shot off can still result in a penalty - it disincentivises diving.

I agree with the majority of your statements. I strongly agree with calling fouls for players who do not fall (I gave a free kick last night for a player who was kicked after passing the ball, and everyone seemed confused, including the player who was kicked). However, I find it difficult to justify in what world any scrambling shot in the penalty area is equal to a dead-ball penalty (except one that goes in the net, and I know this is easily argued with). I believe that if you do not blow the whistle and allow them to take a rushed shot on goal, and then decide that the rushed shot was satisfactory, all game control will likely go out the window and you will have to sin-bin your way back in to control the game. However, I am conflicted with the whole "two bites at the cherry" piece, and this is likely why people say they blow the whistle early.

 

[Dan56]

... all referees benefit if we perpetuate the idea that trying to stay on your feet and get a shot off can still result in a penalty - it disincentivises diving.

100% agree. And something else, if the defence see that a poor shot will still result in a penalty (even if it is two bites at the cherry), then it also disincentivises fouling the attacker.

 

[GraemeS]

I agree with the majority of your statements. I strongly agree with calling fouls for players who do not fall (I gave a free kick last night for a player who was kicked after passing the ball, and everyone seemed confused, including the player who was kicked). However, I find it difficult to justify in what world any scrambling shot in the penalty area is equal to a dead-ball penalty (except one that goes in the net, and I know this is easily argued with). I believe that if you do not blow the whistle and allow them to take a rushed shot on goal, and then decide that the rushed shot was satisfactory, all game control will likely go out the window and you will have to sin-bin your way back in to control the game. However, I am conflicted with the whole "two bites at the cherry" piece, and this is likely why people say they blow the whistle early.

I think I was trying to say almost exactly the opposite? A rushed scrambled shot that is easily saved is the definition of "not good enough" for an advantage and should result in the penalty being called - even if the player does stay on their feet and get "a shot" away.

Unless the shot opportunity remains good regardless of the foul or the ball breaks to an unmarked opponent for a tap in, that doesn't qualify as one full bite of the cherry. So giving the penalty is still only one bite, just a different one from the partial nibble they got before. (Am I stretching the metaphor too far?)

 

[OldNavyRef]

I like it. Just imagining in my head, player gets fouled in penalty box, recovers and squares ball to teammate who has open goal and all the time in the world. Team mate then sends the ball to the heavens. Ref looks at the players and says, "I played advantage". A justifiable but Nightmare scenario.

 

[JamesL]

I like it. Just imagining in my head, player gets fouled in penalty box, recovers and squares ball to teammate who has open goal and all the time in the world. Team mate then sends the ball to the heavens. Ref looks at the players and says, "I played advantage". A justifiable but Nightmare scenario.

"You had a better chance than a penalty" is all that needs to be said.

 

[GraemeS]

I like it. Just imagining in my head, player gets fouled in penalty box, recovers and squares ball to teammate who has open goal and all the time in the world. Team mate then sends the ball to the heavens. Ref looks at the players and says, "I played advantage". A justifiable but Nightmare scenario.

I've had almost exactly that happen to me this season - player poked the ball across just before being wiped out, attacker arriving at the back post in loads of space so I call Advantage. And instead of tucking it into the half of the net that was unguarded, he played it diagonally back across and managed to hit the keeper who was scrambling across and deflected it over.

A couple of shouts for the penalty, but I was able to immediately say that I played advantage and even though it was a fairly scrappy and complain-y match, I didn't really get any objections to the choice to play advantage there.

 

[socal lurker]

"You had a better chance than a penalty" is all that needs to be said.

Agree--that is the criteria. USSF used to teach that the only advantage in the PA was a goal. I don't think they necessarily believed that was really the right conceptual standard, but used it as a way to eliminate the advantage calls that were being made when the opportunity to the attacking team was not actually better than a PK but advantage was being used as an excuse to not call a PK. And the reality is that, while they happen, situations in which an attacking team has an opportunity better than a PK and doesn't score are very unusual situations, so following the old USSF teaching would almost always get you to the right place. And it seems to me that where advantage better than a PK was wasted, it's usually pretty obvious and the attacking team is going to be bewildered that their teammate missed the opportunity. At the end of the day, I think we should err on the side of favoring the team that was fouled, not the team that committed the foul..

 

[BCMilan]

"You had a better chance than a penalty" is all that needs to be said.

I think, if you're too quick to shout out "Advantage, play on" and throw your arms forward, then there's no way of going back. Just let the play run on for a bit and see whether there is a better chance than a penalty.

 

[socal lurker]

I think, if you're too quick to shout out "Advantage, play on" and throw your arms forward, then there's no way of going back. Just let the play run on for a bit and see whether there is a better chance than a penalty.

The Laws specifically allow going back if the advantage does not ensue. But I agree that in the PA it is better off not to signal until absolutely crystal clear that there is a better opportunity than a PK--and if it's a goal, the signal becomes superfluous.

 

[RustyRef]

I've been bitten by it on more than one occasion, and there's no way I would play, or advocate, playing advantage in the penalty area unless a goal is literally about to be scored. And even then you are taking a risk as I know from experience if they somehow contrive to miss that near open goal it won't be their fault, rather they will be demanding the penalty.

You need to try to instantly determine whether the chance they have is better than a penalty would be. Given something like 75% to 80% of penalties are scored it needs to be a very, very clear chance to risk playing advantage (even if you don't signal it). Think about even one on ones with the keeper, those get converted less than those figures.