Penalty decision

[Peter Grove]

Saw you’re giving two bites then?

I hear this a lot, but that is in one sense, what the law says.

The law says that the referee:

allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

So the law is literally saying that you can both allow play to continue and go back afterwards "if the anticipated advantage does not ensue ..." - again assuming that this becomes apparent within a short enough time window.

 

[santa sangria]

I hear this a lot, but that is in one sense, what the law says.

The law says that the referee:


So the law is literally saying that you can both allow play to continue and go back afterwards "if the anticipated advantage does not ensue ..." - again assuming that this becomes apparent within a short enough time window.

Not a LotG but match control issue.
(And I was being facetious )

As highlighted above by others the OP is rock-hard place with this.

 

[one]

I hear this a lot, but that is in one sense, what the law says.

The law says that the referee:


So the law is literally saying that you can both allow play to continue and go back afterwards "if the anticipated advantage does not ensue ..." - again assuming that this becomes apparent within a short enough time window.

Oh but that is an interpretiin issue due to poor wording. And I wish IFAB fix this. Because that is the source of the different teaching regarding if you can go back after you have signalled advantage.

Note the the use of the word "anticipated". This could/should be interpreted that untill you have actually decided (prerequisite for signaling) you are playing advantage, you are not technically playing advantage.

The first part requires the benefit to be there, no anticipation, and that is when you allow play to continue. So the first and second part can't co-exist.

 

[GraemeS]

I wonder why Rugby doesn't have the same problem with the "two bites of the cherry" issue - their advantage law is literally based around that as a key part of what it exists to do. And no one seems to think that's unfair.

 

[one]

Rugby doesn't have an issue with pulling an opponent by their shirt either but I am sure every one thinks that is unfair in football different sports, different concepts.

 

[GraemeS]

Rugby doesn't have an issue with pulling an opponent by their shirt either but I am sure every one thinks that is unfair in football different sports, different concepts.

That feels...unfairly flippant.

Both sports have an advantage law, broadly speaking designed to ensure a offended-against team looses out as little as possible as a result of that foul. But they've taken a very different approach to what is a fair amount of second chance to give - that seems like a relevant point to raise in a discussion about what counts as a fair advantage.

 

[one]

That feels...unfairly flippant.

Both sports have an advantage law, broadly speaking designed to ensure a offended-against team looses out as little as possible as a result of that foul. But they've taken a very different approach to what is a fair amount of second chance to give - that seems like a relevant point to raise in a discussion about what counts as a fair advantage.

I didn't for a scond think your point was not a relevant point to raise. I tried to answer your question.

Let's try this one. I don't think of it as two bites at the cherry in rugby. I think of it as the dynamics of rugby dictates a much longer wait than the few seconds that football allows. And for that reason the signal has to come early.

I still think even though there is a similarity in the concept of advantage, the different game concepts and dynamics makes the comparison feel like comparing apples and oranges (quite like that analogy here).

 

[GraemeS]

I didn't for a scond think your point was not a relevant point to raise. I tried to answer your question.

Let's try this one. I don't think of it as two bites at the cherry in rugby. I think of it as the dynamics of rugby dictates a much longer wait than the few seconds that football allows. And for that reason the signal has to come early.

I still think even though there is a similarity in the concept of advantage, the different game concepts and dynamics makes the comparison feel like comparing apples and oranges (quite like that analogy here).

Fair enough, apologies if I misread your previous post.

That's interesting that you read it that way - my interpretation of rugby's advantage has always been pretty much that you explicitly do get the opportunity to have two bites at the cherry. The classic rubgy foul is the defence going in at the side to try and recover the ball - if they fail to actually recover it, the attack will then string together a few passes, eventually go back into contact (maybe this will happen more than once) and the referee will then assess at that point if they've gained enough, of if they're better off taking the penalty that occurred 30 second earlier.

I don't for a second think football should allow that long. But the overarching philosophy - that the referee should be entitled to see what happens and then pick advantage/free kick based on which he believes is better for the offended-against team - that is something that makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[socal lurker]

Oh but that is an interpretiin issue due to poor wording. And I wish IFAB fix this. Because that is the source of the different teaching regarding if you can go back after you have signalled advantage.

Note the the use of the word "anticipated". This could/should be interpreted that untill you have actually decided (prerequisite for signaling) you are playing advantage, you are not technically playing advantage.

The first part requires the benefit to be there, no anticipation, and that is when you allow play to continue. So the first and second part can't co-exist.

Once upon a time, the Laws expected referees to immediately decide on advantage--and if it turned out not to be there, too bad, too late to do anything about it. The Laws were changed to allow the referee to be sure the advantage was really there. That change led to two schools of thought: (1) wait to see if the advantage is fully there, or (2) signal advantage promptly, and go back if it isn't there. Neither school of thought is wrong under the Laws, though (1) has become predominant and I gather is what is taught in most places. (Many practitioners of (1) believe it is the only right way; practitioners of (2) tend to believe both are acceptable.)

Both have different merits. I think (2) is particularly useful where there is a hard foul, a possible good advantage, and the R wants to immediately communicate that he saw it and recognized the foul, to avoid further escalation while permitting the advantage. The fact that (2) is permissible also means that if the R signals advantage and quickly realizes that what he thought was there wasn't, he can go back.

The danger of (2) is confusing an advantage that wasn't there with a poor play or poor decision by the attacker. If the advantage the R thought was there was a pass to a teammate, but that teammate was OS, there was no actual advantage. But if the advantage the R saw (for a non-PK) was an unimpeded one on one with the keeper, and instead the attacker makes a poor decisions to pass to an OS teammate, the advantage was there and the player blew it. Similarly, if the advantage the R thinks will ensue is a ball bouncing to an attacker, but the nature of the ball bounce turns out to only give a very difficult play, the advantage wasn't there; but if the attacker does get a good ball (better than the FK) and mishits it, then the player fluffed the advantage and there is nothing to go back for. It's those plays in the PA that are particularly tough, because the question really is was the chance better than a PK, which not many are. (And I think is what led to the "no advantage except a goal" philosophy.)

 

[one]

The other problems with 2 is, signal advantage immediately, one second later the team is actually in a better position than a FK, that should be it there is no going back, three more seconds and the FK is better option now (not because of poor choice, just how play develops), ref brings play back.

 

[Degnann]

The first point reminds me of a penalty given earlier on in the year by a European ref. I want to say for Man Utd but I’m not sure. Where the balls played and the player is caught and he still brings it back after a few seconds.

personally if you haven’t managed to play advantage by signal or verbal and the chance was simply just because you hadn’t brought the whistle to the mouth then you could easily bring that back.

 

[socal lurker]

The other problems with 2 is, signal advantage immediately, one second later the team is actually in a better position than a FK, that should be it there is no going back, three more seconds and the FK is better option now (not because of poor choice, just how play develops), ref brings play back.

I disagree with you assessment. When the R signals is fully independent from whether/when the R can go back and rescind. With either signalling strategy, the sole question for the R is whether, within appropriate time, the advantage ensued. But at the end of the day, either way, advantage is art not science, and relies on referees developing a feel for the game. (IMO the biggest mistakes new refs make with advantage are not seeing it at all, and letting mere possession be "advantage" as opposed to being in a more advantageous position by not calling the foul.)

 

[one]

I disagree with you assessment. When the R signals is fully independent from whether/when the R can go back and rescind. With either signalling strategy, the sole question for the R is whether, within appropriate time, the advantage ensued. But at the end of the day, either way, advantage is art not science, and relies on referees developing a feel for the game. (IMO the biggest mistakes new refs make with advantage are not seeing it at all, and letting mere possession be "advantage" as opposed to being in a more advantageous position by not calling the foul.)

The point is not about when to signal, it is about applying advantage when it has indeed ensued but then also giving a free kick when that ensued advantage has not continued after an extended period in the context of advantage. Signaling early facilitates this problem but does not cause it all the time. It is also possible to signal early and then bring it back for the free kick in a fair situation.

Same situation, but when you don't bring play back after signaling (1), you signal as soon as the team is in a more advantageous position (after one second) then three seconds later when that benefit is no longer there (say due to good defending which would have also been there had the foul not been committed), that is just part of the game and you don't go back to the free kick.

Agree with your point about new refs.

 

[RefIADad]

@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"?

The last sentence wasn't really called for. @socal lurker is a very reasonable poster on multiple forums, and his request for information was legitimate. I had the same question as I was reading the thread.

This has to be a "you had to be there to experience it moment", but based on what I bolded, I would still feel good about pulling play back and awarding a penalty. A half volley isn't the easiest kick on which to connect. If the ball was sitting still or rolling slowly, I'd be much more inclined to say that the empty net was a better opportunity than a penalty kick. A half volley, depending on the level of play, isn't a sure thing even if it's an empty net.

If I'm going to "give an advantage" on a foul that leads to a penalty, I'm not calling it until the ball is in the net if I call it at all. I would definitely let the players know that I saw the foul (and, if necessary, I'd card the offender), but I'm not going to call the advantage during play for two reasons. First, any advantage will materialize so quickly. Second, if I'm near the penalty area I don't want a big advantage yell to distract anyone.

I had a play somewhat similar to this happen to me a few weeks ago, but the foul wasn't in the area. However, I was less than 10 yards from play, and within two seconds of the foul the ball was in the net. I didn't signal any sort of advantage, but I did let the fouled player know that I recognized the foul. I also let the coach of the scoring team know (only because this girl had been fouled enough in the first half that I cautioned a player for persistently fouling the same player). Everyone realized that, even though I didn't give the advantage signal or call out "play on" or "advantage", they had realized an advantage in the best way possible.

 

[SW20]

I'd signal that I'd played advantage if the ball hits the net, if it doesn't then I'm definitely awarding a Penalty Kick.

May not be 100% right in law but I think it's what football would expect and the best way to avoid any issues on the pitch. I could see such an issue having a potentially huge impact on match control if not handled correctly.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

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.

So read what I'm replying to. Either the referee played the advantage or he didn't - the time it took to get the whistle to the lips is sort of irrelevant?

 

[one]

I'd signal that I'd played advantage if the ball hits the net, if it doesn't then I'm definitely awarding a Penalty Kick.

May not be 100% right in law but I think it's what football would expect and the best way to avoid any issues on the pitch. I could see such an issue having a potentially huge impact on match control if not handled correctly.

I'd have to disagree here. This is not only incorrect in law a it is unfair to the defending team. Yes they committed a foul but the punishment Shou fit the crime. To make the point, say the ensuing change is one that you would put away 999 times out of 1000. Much better than a penalty or the chance they would have had without a foul. The attacker gets complacent at such easy chance and hits it over the bar. You then give them another chance to score with a penalty.

You can't sacrifice fairness for match control.

 

[SW20]

I'd have to disagree here. This is not only incorrect in law a it is unfair to the defending team. Yes they committed a foul but the punishment Shou fit the crime. To make the point, say the ensuing change is one that you would put away 999 times out of 1000. Much better than a penalty or the chance they would have had without a foul. The attacker gets complacent at such easy chance and hits it over the bar. You then give them another chance to score with a penalty.

You can't sacrifice fairness for match control.

It's a tough one because I understand the OP's argument about two bites of the cherry etc but based on the incident he's described, it all happened rather quickly and the player in question had a chance to score in the form of a half volley. So perhaps not quite as easy a chance as to justify an indisputable "Advantage"

 

[GraemeS]

I'd have to disagree here. This is not only incorrect in law a it is unfair to the defending team. Yes they committed a foul but the punishment Shou fit the crime. To make the point, say the ensuing change is one that you would put away 999 times out of 1000. Much better than a penalty or the chance they would have had without a foul. The attacker gets complacent at such easy chance and hits it over the bar. You then give them another chance to score with a penalty.

You can't sacrifice fairness for match control.

I'm 100% behind the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. But your obsession with avoiding any slight possibility you might overdo it is leading you to miss the fact that you are advocating a conclusion where no punishment at all has occurred. And given the speed involve, where by playing "advantage", we make that decision already knowing that there will be no consequences for that foul.

There's nothing fair about that at all.