Question Number: 26714

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/3/2012

RE: Competitive Under 19

Nill Toulme of Atlanta, GA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 26697

I was surprised at two of the three answers given to the question regarding 'two bites at the apple' on advantage situations in the PA. My understanding of USSF guidance on this - based upon the Ask a Ref entry of September 27, 2010, quoted below - is that advantage in the PA is only realized by the immediate scoring of a goal, failing which the PK should always be given - regardless of the reason the goal was not ultimately scored, such as a plain miss. In other words, if a goal is not scored, then yes in some situations the attacker does indeed get two bites. The operative sentence is the last one: 'If a goal is not scored, regardless of the reason, whistle and call for a penalty kick.'

ADVANTAGE AND MISSED SHOT
September 17, 2010

Question:
This weeks Week 23 USSF Week in Review features Brian Hall discussing the concept of advantage in the penalty area (referring to the 8 minute mark of the audio portion).

Mr. Hall states that advantage on a DFK foul by the defending team in its own PA can only occur if a goal is scored almost immediately; if not, the foul should be called an a penalty kick awarded.
Here is my theoretical situation. Lets say a GK commits a DFK foul on an attacker, who releases the ball and the ball rolls to a teammate who now has a shot from 2 yards away on the 8-foot by 24-foot goal frame. Its a "cant miss" opportunity. But amazingly, the attacker somehow manages to mis-kick the ball and chips it wide of the post or over the crossbar (this is not impossible? a search of "Missed goals" on YouTube will turn a few of these up).

Clearly it behooves the referee to play
advantage and give the golden scoring chance. But, according to Mr. Hall, once the shot misses the PK should be awarded. This is going to seem like double jeopardy for the defense, and will undoubtedly result in much angst and potential dissent from the defense.

The missed goal is not the fault of the foul or any play by the defending team; it is due to the technical inadequacy of the attacker.

Im fine with following this directive, but I want to make sure that this is what is truly intended. I can sense situations developing in which we are following this direction and have to deal with subsequent dissent for the interpretation.

USSF answer (September 17, 2010):
For something over a year now, the Federation has espoused precisely the line expressed in the Week in Review. This line distinguishes between the concept of advantage anywhere else in the field and how the concept differs in the penalty area. What it comes down to is this:
As regards procedures, the mechanics of advantage in the penalty area would be to keep your mouth shut and the whistle down, no matter what. No referee should ever be caught on tape giving the non-PA advantage signal for something that occurred inside the penalty area.

As regards the substance of advantage, inside the penalty area advantage is defined solely in terms of scoring a goal "immediately" (i.e., within a play " roughly " a pinball-type carom off one player to another player and then into the goal would be included). If a goal is scored "immediately," count the goal and card only if the original offense by the defender deserved it outside the context of S4 or S5 (Law 12 reasons for sending-off). If a goal is not scored, regardless of the reason, whistle and call for a penalty kick.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

We discuss the world's game, and the USSF interpretation and recommendations do not always match those from other federations. The referee must decide for each incident whether the advantage has been realized.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

In the rest of the world, and before sometime in 2009, an easy shot on goal after a foul in the penalty area was considered advantage realized regardless whether a goal was scored or not. In 2009 USSF changed that for USSF officials by stating that only an immediate goal was considered advantage realized and that USSF referees should NEVER signal advantage and wait and see. No immediate goal, award the PK.

This interpretation is not followed everywhere else.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
As Referees Wickham and Contarino has alluded to the answer I gave was a European perspective. While in essence the application would be much the same in Europe with the exception that if a player through his own mistake after advantage has been realised messes up then that outcome is accepted in the same way as it would be anywhere else on the field of play. An example for me is where a player is say fouled by the GK, the player goes past him with perhaps a stumble, manages to continue on and then passes the ball to a team who in front of goal kicks it wide or misses the ball. The attacking team has had a clear advantage which IMO was realised. That has happened to me in a game recently and the attacking team accepted the decision of a goal kick.
Generally though it is not a good tactic to play advantage inside the penalty area and most fouls will result in the award of the PK.
The best advice is 'wait and see' what develops. It can be unhelpful to the overall game when the referee has blown his whistle 'early' just before a goal is scored as he then must disallow it and perhaps have to take disciplinary action such as a dismissal should it be required. There is no guarantee either that the penalty will be scored.