incorrectly applied advantage in the box

[CrossRef]

There was this match when a striker was fouled in the box and he was falling to the ground. I was going to give the penalty. I've already put my whistle in my mouth. However, the striker hold up in the last minute, rose from a near crouching position, dribbled several step, made a shot and the ball was moving slowly to an open goal. I was a bit confused during the process and didn't blow the whistle. Then another player came up and stopped the goal.

I didn't give the penalty at the time. I felt even I didn't like it, an advantage has been played (even not intentionally), then if I rolled it back to give the penalty, the defending team would be punished twice which didn't seem to be fair.

I know for sure the best choice is to blow the whistle at once to give a penalty, and the law says clearly that advantage usually not played unless the a goal is going to be scored. However, if inadvertently an advantage has been played and the goal is saved, what is the best choice? To roll it back for penalty or not?

Thanks!

 

[Johnson]

For penalties, adopt the wait and see approach (for most things really). Wait a few seconds to see if the advantage materialises. If it does, awesome! Signal advantage (and shout “Play on” or “Advantage” (I prefer “Advantage”)) and get brownie points with the assessor, players etc. If it doesn’t, come back for the foul.

Normally, a shot at goal would be an advantage having materialised, but from a penalty kick, I’d be bringing it back. Only time I’d play advantage for a penalty kick is a goal or basically a tap-in into an empty net the striker’s somehow messed up. Something like 75% of penalties are converted, so a shot with a worse chance of scoring than that isn’t an advantage.

 

[wazztie16]

A similar situation happened to me once, keeper took out attacker at the edge of the area and ball was going into the empty net. I got away with it, holding my whistle a couple of seconds to see if the ball would go in but a defender that I hadn't spotted cleared it and I blew for the penalty. Probably 2 bites of the cherry for the attacking team, without checking in sure the situations involved are supported by advantage in law.

I think you just have to try not to leave too long between whichever decision you make, a second or 2 you have to react within and make a firm decision and stick to it.

 

[one]

if I rolled it back to give the penalty, the defending team would be punished twice

What was the first punishment?

 

[socal lurker]

I’d suggest going back to the definition of advantage—is the tea, better off. That means the opportunity should be better than the FK/PK that would be awarded. If a better opportunity never comes about, the advantage never ensued and the FK/PK should be given. As I picture the OP, the opportunity was never remotely close to a PK, which means the advantage did not snsue in the seconds after the foul, and it would have been proper to go back to the PK.

(USSF used to teach that the ONLY advantage application against a PK was a goal being scored. I always thought that went a bit too far. But I think the reason they taught that was it is usually true. And they preferred to have PKs given in the very rare cases where an attacker fluffed an opportunity better than a PK than to have errors the other way with “advantage” being played where an attacker had a low probability chance after the foul and referees over app,ied advantage.)

 

[one]

Reading the OP, its clear @CrossRef agrees he should have blown for the penalty after the foul. And the question he asks is should he have given a penalty after the shot was taken or after it was cleared.

The concept of not giving two bites at the cherry is to ensure we don't over-punish the defenders by effectively punishing them twice. But both of those punishments must actually be a punishment fitting the offence. From the description the first punishment seems to be the opportunity given after advantage. From what I read that opportunity was not sufficient punishment because it was impacted by the foul. Had he had a decent shot at goal but missed it or misskicked it due to lack of skill then I'd leave it at that.

On another note, @CrossRef you seem to think that you played advantage. I read that you were waiting to see if advantage ensues, and it didn't, so you actually didn't play advantage and were within your rights to blow for a penalty.

 

[CrossRef]

Yes exactly. I didn't intend to play advantage. The best choice in retrospect is just to blow the whistle immediately, I am sure of that, it was a clear foul. It's not an intentional 'wait and see' either, it's the fact that the striker rising up instead of falling off the ground made me hesitate for a while, and then he made a shot which made me think about 'double punishment' so I didn't roll back for the penaly.

From the discussion above it should be clear that calling back for penalty is the right decition.

Thanks!

Reading the OP, its clear @CrossRef agrees he should have blown for the penalty after the foul. And the question he asks is should he have given a penalty after the shot was taken or after it was cleared.

The concept of not giving two bites at the cherry is to ensure we don't over-punish the defenders by effectively punishing them twice. But both of those punishments must actually be a punishment fitting the offence. From the description the first punishment seems to be the opportunity given after advantage. From what I read that opportunity was not sufficient punishment because it was impacted by the foul. Had he had a decent shot at goal but missed it or misskicked it due to lack of skill then I'd leave it at that.

On another note, @CrossRef you seem to think that you played advantage. I read that you were waiting to see if advantage ensues, and it didn't, so you actually didn't play advantage and were within your rights to blow for a penalty.