A&H

Penalty or play on?

Nij said:
A GSO is not enough. It must be an obvious GSO. And that was denied - the player is now trying to shoot while being held, which is not an obvious opportunity to score a goal; it's barely an obvious opportunity to play the ball, and only then because we know that they managed to do so.

Playing advantage would be the wrong decision, so this shouldn't apply anyway.
But let's suppose it was DOGSO-F and advantage is played because they managed to shoot.
The player can only be cautioned for USB if the DOGSO-F offence was an attempt to play the ball and a PK was awarded.
Since holding is not an attempt to play the ball, this cannot apply, and the sanction must be a dismissal.
Click to expand...
I dont know how being able to shoot at goal is not an obvious opportunity to score. Yes the obvious opportunity is interfered with but it isn't denied.
Playing advantage wasn't wrong on the OP as he scored a goal so why wouldn't you wait and see?
To say playing advantage was wrong when a goal was scored is contradicting law and spirit of the game.
If he misses you then make your decision. If he is 1 on 1 with the keeper chances to score are not much more obvious than that.
 
The Referee Store
I suppose the question that is arising is whether the opportunity is obvious at the time the foul is committed, which also requires deciding when the foul is committed including if it has continued until such a time as the opportunity becomes obvious
 
I can't tell if playing advantage was right or wrong for sure in the OP because it is one of those that YHTBT. But you can't base it on the fact that a goal was scored then it was right. You can play advantage on a completely wrong time and get lucky with the bounce of the ball etc. That does not make the decision right.

To put a bit more context, the chance of scoring from a penalty is about 70% to 80% across the board. When you play advantage in a one on one (with a defender hanging n to you), i'd say in most cases your chances will be less than that (narrower angle, closed angle, less time to think...).

Even from a game management point of view, worse case scenario for playing advantage (when you shouldn't) is much harder to manage than not playing advantage (when you should). Best case scenarios are easy to manage either way.
 
JamesL said:
I dont know how being able to shoot at goal is not an obvious opportunity to score. Yes the obvious opportunity is interfered with but it isn't denied.
Playing advantage wasn't wrong on the OP as he scored a goal so why wouldn't you wait and see?
To say playing advantage was wrong when a goal was scored is contradicting law and spirit of the game.
If he misses you then make your decision. If he is 1 on 1 with the keeper chances to score are not much more obvious than that.
Click to expand...
The hypothetical is that the player missed, so what relevance does a different situation have?
If he misses, you have already made your decision: you cannot give advantage and then give a PK for the same offence.
And he cannot be one-on-one against the goalkeeper either, because he's being held by a defender, which is the entire point of the discussion.

It's only an opportunity to score if they can keep balance, if they can make contact with the ball, if they're close enough to make a shot in those circumstances actually have a chance of scoring - which makes it not obvious at all that they actually have an opportunity to score. So why do something silly like try to play advantage when it doesn't exist in the hope that you get lucky?
 
Because if it goes in you're a God, and if it doesn't you can say you didn't play advantage, you just didn't have time to get the whistle to your mouth.
 
JamesL said:
I think a red card for DOGSO is against the spirit of the law.
For DOGSO a GSO has to be denied.
Not interfered with, but actually prevented. Getting the shot away means a GSO still existed, despite being less of a chance than had the holding not occurred.

I think the OPs scenario fits more in line with...

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/
sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/
sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the
denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for
unsporting behaviour.
Click to expand...


But the question isn't what would you do if you played advantage and the attacker missed.
So what what you would do under an advantage situation is irrelevant.

The OP says the defender is giving the attacker a bear hug, if that doesn't deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity, then I don't know what does.

Of course the ideal solution would be to blow your whistle quicker
 
zarathustra said:
But the question isn't what would you do if you played advantage and the attacker missed.
So what what you would do under an advantage situation is irrelevant.

The OP says the defender is giving the attacker a bear hug, if that doesn't deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity, then I don't know what does.

Of course the ideal solution would be to blow your whistle quicker
Click to expand...
The OP does not mention a bear hug anywhere. He says being manhandled.

We are all obviously seeing this differently based on description and @one has it right that YHYBT so I will leave it at this.

As referees we have an opportunity to have a positive impact on the game. Be that allowing opportunities for goals, or protecting players. Sometimes it can be about keepi g 22 players on the pitch, within the franework of the laws obviously.
For me, if a player is advancing on goal, towards and into the goal area I am waiting to see a resolution.

The arguments I see in this thread about blowing early can backfire and I see referees miss excellent advantage opportunoties by being too quick on the whistle. Think Clattenburg, FA Cup Final l, he blew too early when there was a clear advantage to play for Palace.

I think we are all seeing this differently by visualising the OP differently so I don't think we will get any agreement here
 
RobOda said:
Had an incident a few weeks back that I'm over-thinking today for no reason other than to ask questions;

Here's the scenario;

Through ball played to a striker into the opposition box. Defender marking him is manhandling him (holding) all the way into the six yard box. No other defenders or covering defenders nearby, he is literally one on one with the keeper if not for the defender giving him a bear hug. Striker gets his shot off just as I am about to blow the whistle for the foul, and scores. Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

My question then is: If he got his shot away and missed or it was saved, would you penalise the holding offence and if so, what card would you be going for, if any?
Click to expand...

My bold

A bear hug is a long way away from man handling someone.
 
You'd really have to determine whether the holding affected the shot. Yes, he got the shot away, but was he off balance and if so did you think that affected the shot. If no then you can't really give the penalty as he had his chance and fluffed it, if yes then go back for the penalty and I can't see any additional outcome other than red for DOGSO.

The safer option is to just give the penalty. I know that means you end up with a red card that potentially could have been avoided, but I've seen referees playing advantage in the penalty area and it goes wrong for them far more often than it pays off.
 
Penalty and sending off for DOGSO. Yes, he got a shot off but the defender's manhandling of him prevented him from getting a fair crack at taking the shot.
 
JamesL said:
I think we are all seeing this differently by visualising the OP differently so I don't think we will get any agreement here
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'm not very good at finding video clips of anything remotely similar to what happened, so I'm no use there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top