Question Number: 14786

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/2/2007

Jon of London, UK asks...

This question is a follow up to question 14759

Sorry guys for butting into this, but i have just read this having posted a few minutes before reading this thought it apt to refer to my WAIT...ADVANTAGE comment. No referee on this earth should EVER think that it is advantageous to award a PK and dismissal over a goal and caution. Not one worth their salt as an official anyway. This comes under 'common sense'. And if someone said to me you can either have your red card or your common sense out there with you, what do you think i would take?!?! Its def not the plastic!!

I can sure as hell tell you that the attacking team would want their goal and the defending team would want their player on the field. ALWAYS play advantage if you can, espeially if it is going to lead to a goal, or a goal is scored. The exact scenario you mention is in fact, as Ref Dawson quoted for you, mentioned in the Fifa Q&A.

And on a side note...You do not have to be a 'professional referee' to know the laws inside out as the guys on this site do. Any professional referee that tells you this is wrong, and I honestly don't beleive it would ever leave their mouths.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jon,
We can totally agree a red card and a pk is unneccessary when such an opportunity to delay a whistle results in a goal and caution.

Are you comfortable if advantage is applied, in fact the obvious opportunity to score is still in the offering if you are in fact going to not whistle the foul and send off the player for a DOG or a DOGSO type incident?

I witnessed two take downs that prevented a great opportunity to shoot where a trip and a hold by the beaten keeper as the last opponent back prevented the attacker from simply kicking the ball into goal and one outright denial of a goal that would have crossed into the goal except for a deliberate handling by the last defender (not the keeper) where the referee applied advantage and no goal resulted!
The claim of two bites at the apple here are very murky in my opinion.

I am very interested to hear your expanded view on this quote"
"ALWAYS play advantage if you can, especially if it is going to lead to a goal, or a goal is scored."

What is your take if no goal results?
Is the advantage criteria of being met after a dogso foul higher than say a foul at midfield where some promising attacking play is possible?
Application of advantage does not preclued a miss on the follow up play which is why I monitor an OBVIOUS opportunity with a great deal more interest.
Do you view a DOG (denial of a goal) different than a DOGSO (denial of a goalscoring opportunity?
What if the secondary opportunity is not as nearly as good as the first one?
Let me ask you what is your taught proceedure to apply the advantage ?
Recently I was very interested to learn certain associations only state it AFTER they have decided to allow play

UEFA recommended ''that referees, if possible, should adopt a ?wait and see? approach in order to assess whether the non-offending team really has an attacking possibility.

In principle advantage should normally only be played when a promising attacking move or an obvious goal scoring opportunity would occur.''

''In those circumstances where the referee considers that the offending player should receive a second yellow card or a direct red card for the original offence, advantage should not be considered. A free kick should be awarded immediately.''

This seemed to imply that it is unwise to apply advantage to a DOGSO foul as the direct red card is stated in law.
Yet I see little wrong in delaying a whistle to await an outcome where it looks very promising the ball will continue INTO the goal or provide a sitter for a teammate that is to say only by the poorest display of inepitude could the player possibly miss. Admittedly I have never cried out or signaled advantage inside the PA I have on many occassions delayed my whistle to watch the ball go into goal and found it avantagous to do so
We all enjoy your comments and questions here and appreciate the wisdom and candor of both your experiance and attitude
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Hi Jon. Thanks for the post especially since I'm the one catching grief for stating what should be obvious to anyone that steps onto the field in the capacity of a referee. There is nothing as advantageous as the awarding of a goal and it is our job to do nothing to restrict a goal by stopping play too quickly. I agree that no professional referee should utter such nonsense but I suspect it could have occured.

Answer provided by Referee Nathan Lacy

This particular subject has had me thinking for a few days - an interesting subject area. Advantage is applied when by not calling the foul we give the attacking team a greater opportunity for scoring and do not help the defending team realize a tactically benefical stoppage of the ball (a significant paraphrasing on my part for sure). If there are referees out there that think that taking the ball out of the net and awarding a PK (and a red card in this case) is "advantage" then I think they need to go back to their basic introductory level course. What greater advantage can be had for a game that is all about "scoring goals" then when the ball is actually in the back of the net? It's tough for me to come up with one as has already been discussed quite a bit above. Also, I have heard it stated over the years that what differentiates the good from the great referees is the appropriate use of advantage and this would seem to simply be another example of that perspective. A subject area that I wanted to include here, however, involves the use of the red and yellow cards. There was a survey done of referees a few years back - in the USA college ranks I believe. Two of the questions that were asked might be of interest here: (1) What benefits you most in helping to control a match? and (2) What has harmed you the most in controlling a match? (paraphrased as based on my memory) The most common answer in both cases was the same - the use of the red and yellow cards. The "take home message?" Those cards can be our best friends or our worst enemies - we MUST use them judiciously and correctly. In a situation such as described I can only see this as a totally inapproriate use of the cards and if you think the PLAYERS won't respond to this then you are sadly mistaken. They will absolutely know that an injustice was done and their respect for the referee will go down accordingly. Guess what will most likely happen to match control at that point? (yeah, a no-brainer for sure) Not only that but by using the red card (incorrectly in my opinion) the referee has not only influenced the game in progress but the next one (potentially) as well. Is that justice? I think not. (I am not advocating that we should change our decision based on the impact of the next game but am merely trying to comment on the extent to which this decision impacts the team involved) Those cards can either really help us or bury us in the ground. Using them wisely is an absolute. All the best,

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 14797