The Ref Stop

Penalty decision

Phonesurgeon

Phonesurgeon

Cook, Cleaner and Bottle Washer
Level 7 Referee
This happened to me yesterday, 2 similar incident, 2 opposite results.
So red v yellow local cup fixture.
1. Yellow attacker chasing ball into PA, red gk brings him down,I'm about to whistle for PK, ball bounces back to another yellow attacker who takes a shot at goal(open goal as gk still on floor), hit post and go out. I signal for goal kick, amidst yellow appeals for PK, explain that if he scored we wouldn't have this discussion.
2. Red attacker enters PA ball to his foot, gets brought down by yellow defender(reds appealing for PK), ball bounces to another red player that curled it in top corner, yellow keeper seen it to late and just see it going in back of net. Goal awarded.
Both incidents happened so fast, I didn't have the material time to bring whistle to mouth and just watched happening.
In hindsight i should've YC both red gk, and yellow defender for the wreckless tackle made.
What's your view on these 2?
 
The Ref Stop
Sounds fair outcome in both cases. You played advantage in both cases but did not have enough time to signal it. I would use that in my explanation for the first one.

Having said that, I need to see the first one to see if it was appropriate to play advantage. The chances of scoring a pen is better than 7 out of ten. This should have been an almost certain chance for it to be a proper advantage.
 
I didn't play advantage, I literally not had a chance to bring whistle to mouth. Both happened in mere nano seconds.
I can't see why, after a failed attempt at goal, I should award the penalty so the yellows gets a second chance at scoring? It doesn't seem fair?
 
Phonesurgeon said:
I can't see why, after a failed attempt at goal, I should award the penalty so the yellows gets a second chance at scoring? It doesn't seem fair?
Click to expand...
The advantage occur when the Yellow had the chance to out the ball into the empty net. If a defender had been closer or stopped the shot, then you should go back for the penalty.
 
Phonesurgeon said:
I didn't play advantage, I literally not had a chance to bring whistle to mouth. Both happened in mere nano seconds.
I can't see why, after a failed attempt at goal, I should award the penalty so the yellows gets a second chance at scoring? It doesn't seem fair?
Click to expand...

There are two schools of thought.

One, which was the clearly taught philosophy in the US and I think still is predominant is that the only advantage in the PA is a goal. Full stop. No advantage signal needed, as you’re signaling for the goal.

The other philosophy is that it is no different from the rest of the he field and if the attacker fluffs it, tough on him. But with this second philosophy, cafe needs to be taken—the opportunity recognized as advantage must be better than a PK. And that means you have to take into account factors like angle and the moving ball, not just say he had a crack at open net, but was that a better chance to score than a PK. And there isn’t enough in your description to answer that question. In my mind, the R has to be really sure the opportunity was better to not give the PK.
 
@socal lurker
Open net, the next red defender was stationary about 2m to his left, nobody else in front. Took his chance on half volley, and scuffed the shot, sending it side of post and out. Does that help with the second "phylosofy"?
 
Phonesurgeon said:
I didn't play advantage, I literally not had a chance to bring whistle to mouth. Both happened in mere nano seconds.
I can't see why, after a failed attempt at goal, I should award the penalty so the yellows gets a second chance at scoring? It doesn't seem fair?
Click to expand...
If it's that quick, it actually really benefits you as the referee. Player slots it? Great - give it the big arms, yell "ADVANTAGE" at the top of your lungs and bask in the glory and adulation that will surely come your way.

Player misses it? Now you've got a decision to make. Did he miss it because he displayed a level of skill that is lower relative to the level he is playing at that would be reasonably expected? Or putting it another way, was it still a tricky chance for that player?
You've listed yourself as a L7, which (no offence intended) implies you're likely to be in the middle with players who probably count themselves lucky not to fall over when trying to trap a ball. At that level, even an open goal still becomes relatively tricky when the player has to take a rushed half volley. If he clearly had time to take it down and roll it in, but chose not to, then maaaaaaaaaybe allowing him to do so would be the best choice - but anything even slightly harder than that, do yourself a favour and just give the PK immediately once it's gone wide.
 
I can see where you are going when consider skill level when playing advantage but we need to be carfull not to over think this. It's harder for a lower skilled player to tap a half volley in. But so is taking a penalty, saving it etc etc. I think simple is best here.
 
Last edited:
You had to be there...

I think you’ve done right with both decisions.

The hardest thing is getting trapped in trying to understand the follow up shooter: do they realise it’s a PK, do they understand advantage, do they realise there’s not gonna be two bites, are they expecting a PK, do they have the skill, how easy is the chance...?

There’s a problem going down this road... it’s just too much to consider whatever the level.

Back to basics: imminent goalscoring opportunity, open goal. It’s a great advantage. If anything this advantage is “mandated” by the LotG. Well done!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
santa sangria said:
You had to be there...

I think you’ve done right with both decisions.

The hardest thing is getting trapped in trying to understand the follow up shooter: do they realise it’s a PK, do they understand advantage, do they realise there’s not gonna be two bites, are they expecting a PK, do they have the skill, how easy is the chance...?

There’s a problem going down this road... it’s just too much to consider whatever the level.

Back to basics: imminent goalscoring opportunity, open goal. It’s a great advantage. If anything this advantage is “mandated” by the LotG. Well done!!
Click to expand...
But it's happened too fast for a conscious "advantage" decision, which I do think changes the answer slightly from your otherwise well-reasoned post. If you look at the shot he's about to get, make a decision that it requires advantage, call it out loud and it then goes wide, I think you've described the logic perfectly. The law requires you to make a fairly rapid decision, you made a reasoned call on the balance of probability and it doesn't work out. Sorry, chance gone, you can't be expected to wind that back.

But that's not quite the same as it's being described here. By the time the OP has had an opportunity to consider, the follow-up has already gone wide. Which means you're making a decision to play advantage despite already knowing that the advantage has not accrued. How is that beneficial to the offended-against team? And because it's so quick, there's no backtracking required - you're just giving a penalty for a clear foul. What the ball does after the foul is just as irrelevant as any other penalty kick you've ever given.
 
GraemeS said:
But it's happened too fast for a conscious "advantage" decision, which I do think changes the answer slightly from your otherwise well-reasoned post. If you look at the shot he's about to get, make a decision that it requires advantage, call it out loud and it then goes wide, I think you've described the logic perfectly. The law requires you to make a fairly rapid decision, you made a reasoned call on the balance of probability and it doesn't work out. Sorry, chance gone, you can't be expected to wind that back.

But that's not quite the same as it's being described here. By the time the OP has had an opportunity to consider, the follow-up has already gone wide. Which means you're making a decision to play advantage despite already knowing that the advantage has not accrued. How is that beneficial to the offended-against team? And because it's so quick, there's no backtracking required - you're just giving a penalty for a clear foul. What the ball does after the foul is just as irrelevant as any other penalty kick you've ever given.
Click to expand...
Saw you’re giving two bites then?
 
The first scenario - it all depends on the time elapsed for me. If I didn't signal/shout advantage then I'm simply doing what I do (or try to do) throughout the normal course of a match anywhere else on the field in that I give it a second or two before blowing for the foul. In the case of the OP, depending on how long had elapsed before the "advantage" was fluffed, I'd still be bringing them back for the penalty.

:)
Players are generally suckers for the obvious truth remember - especially at grass roots level. If you shout "advantage" (when normally you'd blow for the penalty) and they fluff it - then that's perceived as a refereeing mistake (and 99.99% of the time they'd be right ;)) and you'll get the rightful stick for it. If it's a clear foul and you can demonstrate that you just simply delayed or were a bit slow getting the whistle to your mouth which is why you're still coming back for the penalty then in my experience it's far more easily acceptable.

Failing that, see post #2.
 
santa sangria said:
Saw you’re giving two bites then?
Click to expand...
I could just as easily ask you why you're denying a team a deserved penalty just because it happened to go somewhere near someone else on that team?

Without actually seeing the incident, either of us could probably be right or wrong. But if I've got the whistle in real life and I'm not clear if it was a good enough chance to justify advantage - you can be 100% confident that I'm ruling in favour of the offended-against team.
 
As a rule, do not play advantage in the box unless a team mate is literally nailed on to score. In your situation, I don't think you did play an advantage you just didn't whistle soon enough. If you had gotten to the whistle sooner were you stopping play? If so, that tells me you didn't see an advantage so should have stopped play anyway.
 
GraemeS said:
I could just as easily ask you why you're denying a team a deserved penalty just because it happened to go somewhere near someone else on that team?
Click to expand...

I mean you could but that's not great for the future of the advantage clause. 'Yeah, I know I played advantage and they passed it around and then passed it out of play but I'm going back, they deserved the free-kick.'

An advantage surely comes into existence/can end when the player is able to do something on his own. If a player controls it, runs a yard and is then tackled, advantage over. If he doesn't have time to control it its an advantage.
 
GraemeS said:
if it was a good enough chance to justify advantage
Click to expand...
I think this whole thread is about what this means. It really is a balance on being fair to both sides. On the one hand the team which lost the chance due to a foul should get that chance back, on the other hand the team which fouled should not be punished more than they should.

It's a YHTBT and you just have to judge every situation on its merits to get the balance right.

OP is a unique situation when you don't have enough time to blow whistle for pen or play advantage. So you may well end up giving the team more than one bite at the cherry. Maybe not two full bites though.

Say in your head you don't really see an advantage and what to blow but before you blow the whistle the ball ends up in the net. You are not going to bring the ball back for pen. But if the ball is not in the net you will bring it back for a pen. This is more than one bite at the cherry but is the fairest balance you can achieve.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
I mean you could but that's not great for the future of the advantage clause. 'Yeah, I know I played advantage and they passed it around and then passed it out of play but I'm going back, they deserved the free-kick.'
Click to expand...

That's a total straw man argument. Nobody, absolutely nobody is saying that and it's not even remotely close to the actual scenario under discussion where there was literally not enough time for the referee to even get the whistle to their lips before the whole thing was over.

The wording on advantage makes it clear that the decision is to be made ”within a few seconds" of the incident under consideration. If the ball has been passed around for a while and then gone out of play, it's fairly obvious the few second window has gone and no-one here is suggesting differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top