Red or Advantage?

[deusex]

Each to own view, but at point of contact, am not 100% (90 maybe but not 100) that this will go in so, call me, dull, boring and SAFE, but, am giving the pk and sending off the gk.

So wait a second and see if it goes in!?!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

So wait a second and see if it goes in!?!

The teaching I was given was, unless its 100% it will be a goal, give the pen (and sanction), if your teaching class gave you other information, that's fine, am happy with what I learnt and as far as I know, its not done me too much wrong.

As I posted before, its false environment for us to watch the clip and say we would have waited...if you gen would have, and a goal was to be scored, great, good refereering
If you give the pen and red, again, its entirely correct and justifiable to do so.

 

[zonknz]

That goalie deserves to walk. In someways, a red is the best decision for the game.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I don't think I got my point across. I don't know how to without, painting another scenario along the same lines...




Crossed wires here I think..
if giving the pk there and then, then,dogso. Bye bye gk
If delaying whistle to watch ball roll into net and it does not, then, you can bring it back for a pk but, (and here is the difficult part), you cannot dismiss for dogso.
The clear and obvious gs opportunity has not been denied, granted the ball did not roll over the line, but, that clear and obv opportunity still existed. As we know, its a clear opportunity to score a goal, not the actual scoring of the goal itself we are to judge.
.

Couldn't disagree more. Delaying the whistle isn't playing advantage - it's seeing if there is one. If, say, the defender got back in time and cleared the ball then there was no advantage so the OGSO was denied. Your rationale seems to be mixing up holding the whistle with playing advantage. It's not like you played advantage, the attacker run up, controlled the ball and stuffed it.

Especially given that the attacker didn't have the opportunity to do anything after the foul.

The referee needs to hold the whistle here. Arguing that the whistle needs to be blown immediately just makes no sense at all. This is poor refereeing - it's easy to forget to stop and think, but this is about the clearest case of 'need to hold the whistle' you'll ever see. For me, this is a match-changing error

This is a significant error by the referee here.

That goalie deserves to walk. In someways, a red is the best decision for the game.

It's not if that team loses by 1 goal because that was the only time they got the ball in the net.

 

[zonknz]

I can understand why you'd seek the opportunity to play advantage in a dogso-yellow situation, but in such a blantant dogso-red, I can't help but feel the game, and match control is best served by the goalie walking, and having a week off.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Couldn't disagree more. Delaying the whistle isn't playing advantage - it's seeing if there is one. If, say, the defender got back in time and cleared the ball then there was no advantage so the OGSO was denied. Your rationale seems to be mixing up holding the whistle with playing advantage.

The referee needs to hold the whistle here. Arguing that the whistle needs to be blown immediately just makes no sense at all.

This is a significant error by the referee here.


It's not if that team loses by 1 goal because that was the only time they got the ball in the net.

Lets agree to disagree then.
There is no error, striker was fouled, pk awarded, gk is off, its totally acceptable for this course of action.
As said, each to own, the coaching was give the pk unless the ball is on the goal line and the striker only has to fall on the ball to score. Am satisfied with the advice that was given, and where it came from.
Wherever or whoever preaches different, am sure thats acceptable too

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Lets agree to disagree then.
There is no error, striker was fouled, pk awarded, gk is off, its totally acceptable for this course of action.
As said, each to own, the coaching was give the pk unless the ball is on the goal line and the striker only has to fall on the ball to score. Am satisfied with the advice that was given, and where it came from.
Wherever or whoever preaches different, am sure thats acceptable too

There was a clear error. Referee is required to apply advantage here. He failed to do so and denied the team a clear goal.
I'd prefer to think for myself than blindly follow coaching. I'm sure we all have examples of where even high level teachers/instructors have said things which either make no sense or are in direct contradiction of the law.
Either your instructor was wrong, or he didn't convey his point properly, or wasn't considering a situation as....well, this one is black and white for me and this would be a KMI failure on my assessment. We're not talking about a situation where the ball 'might' pop free and you know that if you hold the whistle, then there's a shot, and maybe another challenge, and you're then stuck where you can sell either decision. Those often happen and are lose-lose situations for the referee. Maybe he was talking about those.
I can't imagine he was talking about this scenario where you very clearly have an impending goal and if it's cleared, you're not going to wait further - you're clearly going to go back to the foul IF that happens.

In short, I can't imagine your instructor actually advised you to not look for the near-certain goal. And if he did - then he needs to go back to the LOTG.

As for your comment about 'coaching was to give the PK unless the ball is on the GL and the striker only has to fall on the ball to score'

Well.....that's the case here. Except the striker didn't even HAVE to fall on the ball to score. Not on the goal line, perhaps, but rolling with some pace into a completely open net. I very much doubt he meant 'literally, sitting above that black paint and not an inch off it'

So if that's what you were taught, then even by your teaching, this is a goal.

There's just no rationale for not holding the whistle and denying the goal here. None whatsoever.

I can understand why you'd seek the opportunity to play advantage in a dogso-yellow situation, but in such a blantant dogso-red, I can't help but feel the game, and match control is best served by the goalie walking, and having a week off.

Blow the whistle and tell the team they can't have the goal even though the ball trickled into an open net then tell me how great that was for your match control.

Advantage REQUIRES the goal.

Does the keeper deserve a red? Maybe, maybe not - but if the ball goes into the goal the law don't permit the red. It's not your job to rob one team of a goal because you think 'oh, he deserves something'.

And of course, trying to stop a goal isn't the same as stopping a goal.

I think plenty of offences deserve something different to what's in the law, but I have to apply the law.

And there's nothing more advantageous than a goal. So why would I go out of my way to hurt the team that was infringed against because I have some moral opinion that isn't supported by law?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

There was a clear error. Referee is required to apply advantage here. He failed to do so and denied the team a clear goal.
I'd prefer to think for myself than blindly follow coaching. I'm sure we all have examples of where even high level teachers/instructors have said things which either make no sense or are in direct contradiction of the law.
Either your instructor was wrong, or he didn't convey his point properly, or wasn't considering a situation as....well, this one is black and white for me and this would be a KMI failure on my assessment. We're not talking about a situation where the ball 'might' pop free and you know that if you hold the whistle, then there's a shot, and maybe another challenge, and you're then stuck where you can sell either decision. Those often happen and are lose-lose situations for the referee. Maybe he was talking about those.
I can't imagine he was talking about this scenario where you very clearly have an impending goal and if it's cleared, you're not going to wait further - you're clearly going to go back to the foul IF that happens.

In short, I can't imagine your instructor actually advised you to not look for the near-certain goal. And if he did - then he needs to go back to the LOTG.

As for your comment about 'coaching was to give the PK unless the ball is on the GL and the striker only has to fall on the ball to score'

Well.....that's the case here. Except the striker didn't even HAVE to fall on the ball to score. Not on the goal line, perhaps, but rolling with some pace into a completely open net. I very much doubt he meant 'literally, sitting above that black paint and not an inch off it'

So if that's what you were taught, then even by your teaching, this is a goal.

There's just no rationale for not holding the whistle and denying the goal here. None whatsoever.

Thanks for that advice, there is not a single thing you or anybody can say to make me not give that pk and red card though!
Oh and the instructor, he helps compile the LOTG, so, am sure he be very pleased to re visit the book anytime!!

 

[RustyRef]

There was a clear error. Referee is required to apply advantage here.

No he isn't, playing advantage is down to the interpretation of the referee. He could perhaps be recommended to play it, but he isn't required to.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

There is no way giving a pk and a red card is a clear error here. I would go as far as to say that comment is misleading for new referees as well as being factually incorrect and should be removed, or at very least edited.

Its possible the Oz observers notes are different of course but, you cannot or should not generalise and state facts which, well, are not facts

Opinions, suggestions, things that could have been done differently, yes, fire in, but, trust me 100%, this was not a clear error by the referee.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

.

No he isn't, playing advantage is down to the interpretation of the referee. He could perhaps be recommended to play it, but he isn't required to.

That's not what Law 5 says...

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Opinions, suggestions, things that could have been done differently, yes, fire in, but, trust me 100%, this was not a clear error by the referee.

He failed to apply advantage and in blowing too early has incorrectly disallowed a goal and artificially created a situation where a player needed to be sent off when they shouldn't have been. So yes, that's a massive error. It's not factually incorrect or any of the other things you were going on about.
Unlike your claim that advantage shouldn't even be considered on DOGSO

 

[Peter Grove]

Oh and the instructor, he helps compile the LOTG

OK, I know the level of debate on here sometimes leaves a little to be desired but are we now actually using logical fallacies, to try and bolster arguments?

An argument from authority, (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion.

 

[zonknz]

artificially created a situation where a player needed to be sent off when they shouldn't have been.

The goalie created this situation, not the ref, by commiting an offense worthy of dogso consideration

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The goalie created this situation, not the ref, by commiting an offense worthy of dogso consideration

Was only DOGSO because the ref blew too early. Really it's a failed attempt at DOGSO then the ref intervened to ensure it succeeded

 

[zonknz]

If the attackers shot had gone wide, what would your decision have been?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

He failed to apply advantage and in blowing too early has incorrectly disallowed a goal and artificially created a situation where a player needed to be sent off when they shouldn't have been. So yes, that's a massive error. It's not factually incorrect or any of the other things you were going on about.
Unlike your claim that advantage shouldn't even be considered on DOGSO

no such claim being made, not by me. Again, fabricating posts to suit your agenda. If your going to quote other users can you at least do it accurately please. Thanks.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

OK, I know the level of debate on here sometimes leaves a little to be desired but are we now actually using logical fallacies, to try and bolster arguments?

no bolstering needed, no trying needed, his instructions, and to this day I have not heard contrary from anyone of similar authority.

 

[one]

@Ciley Myrus as always, you have your mind made up and can't be convinced otherwise no matter what logic is put in front of you. So I am not really trying to convince you because I know from experience it's impossible

The problem with your approach is it's backwards. You make a decision first and then look for reasons to support it which is not objective. Of course you would find 'some' reasons to support it and that would be good enough for you. It's like a physician making a diagnosis first and then look for symptoms. The opinion on what symptoms to look for and interpreting them becomes biased. The correct way around is to look at all the symptoms first and then make a diagnosis based on all of them.

 

[one]

No he isn't, playing advantage is down to the interpretation of the referee. He could perhaps be recommended to play it, but he isn't required to.

I am not sure if you mean this exactly the way you said it or how the laws say it.

The law requires the referee to play advantage if the team benefits from it (except for specific cases stated by law). Not doing so is against the correct application of LOTG. The advantage clause is not an optional clause. What is down to his interpretation is whether or not a team benefits from it. In the case of the OP, although i don't agree with him, I would accept it if he said he assessed the situation and even if a goal was scored the team would have benefited form a penalty and send off.