Question Number: 31005

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/8/2016

RE: Adult

jim of essex, UK asks...

Hi
An attacking player has the ball and is bearing down on the opponents goal , A defending player fouls the attacking player inside the Penalty area, The attacking player stumbles but manages to stay on his feet. The Referee allows the advantage as the attacking player is still moving towards goal with the ball, He then shoots wide.
Should a penalty kick then be given, or is the chance lost because the advantage was played by the Referee ?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jim,
you have remarked upon a very difficult decision, one that creates a lot of acid buildup in the stomach of a referee whose only desire is to play the advantage and then flash a wry smile of satisfaction as the attacker buries the ball into the back of the net. Rather then repeat FIFA advice word for word, as one can read what they say, lets discuss the MEANING!

A referee is a neutral official who applies the LOTG using their best judgment!

The ADVICE within the LOTG is in effect a WARNING to those with the whistle! If you reach too far you can make a mess of something if you are not prepared for the unexpected.

A referee has the POWER to NOT stop play every bit as the duty to stop play if there is a foul or misconduct against one team or the other. Our consideration is? Will we do more harm to the affected team by stopping rather than if we allow play to await an outcome?

Note I used the phrase, await an outcome, rather then simply say if there is an advantage. This is very apparent the CLOSER the incident is to the PA area and VERY crucial if inside the PA. The concept of advantage is not to think that if it does not work out the referee made a mistake but rather the aggrieved team/player team was unable to take the opportunity due to fault not of their doing, i.e. off balanced, opponent intervention or simply to FAIL on their own by a poor choice or terrible skill. The further away from goal the more advantage leans to a continuation of the attack rather than the clear ability to score!

The reason PA incidents are of such controversy centers around if there is a card in the mix (not just a reckless or SFP for the type of tackle ) but the obvious denial of a goal scoring opportunity that specifies the culprit responsible is to be sent off and the awarding of a PK which is about a 75%-85% chance to score.

If you grasp that a DFK foul be it inside the PA or just outside, very often DOGSO criteria are in the mix! I am much more willing to signal the CONVENTIAL advantage outside the PA then inside I can assure you! The video example POSTED below points this out, where Brazils' first goal was the result of advantage as does the PK later where advantage WAS considered but not shown!)

If DOGSO is present, unless the advantage results in a goal, the culprit must be sent off, although, we now have a relaxation of the punishment concerns IF a PK is awarded, for the DFK foul INSIDE the PA we can downgrade a red card send off to a USB caution yellow card for certain tactical fouls as the PK is in fact the opportunity to score.

The idea is ingrained within our psyche of training is that unless there is a CLEAR opportunity to score a goal we are to award the foul send off the miscreant responsible and award the DFK or PK. We have an unwritten mental law when it comes to incidents within the PA it is referred to as 'Swallowing the Whistle!' This is not the USUAL swing of the arm(s) and calling out Advantage! Play! On. It is more of a wait and see which is we hold off to watch if the ball enters the goal! Almost anything BUT a goal we usually blow for the free kick. UNLESS the miss is a result of show boating or some very unusual antics by the goal scorer to disrespect the game. It is not quite the same as, two bites of the same apple, where we allow the attack to continue and the scoring opportunity arises from doing that and through poor play the opportunity is squandered. THEN return to the scene of the foul! We generally are dealing with DOGSO (thus reducing the opposing team by a player) plus a PK as the outcome of an advantage not going well so you can see the significance in the opportunity as to just an attempt to put the ball on target. THAT said if we are convinced the advantage was realized and the ONLY reason for failure is the team with the advantage has convincingly SQUANDERED the opportunity we can certainly allow play to continue. Even if the foul was of a send off variety the referee can exclude their participation by way of an INDFK and stop play at that point.

My colleague Ref McHugh sagely points out the players themselves and the whole situation can create atmosphere that the advantage WAS realized and missed through no fault of anyone except the shooter even if we might think it was unfair they lost the 1st opportunity. But unless the shot is pure gift wrapped and under the Christmas tree but botched and missed we likely go back to the foul.

Watch this great example of my favorite referee using advantage in around the PA in the classic France 1998 World cup match where he ultimately PROVED the concept of INTEGRITY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-lNODXuA6k

First off this is possible the finest video out there regarding the essence of a referee! I suggest you WATCH all the video but look at 1.15 the referee in PERFECT position signalling the advantage. Listen to his comments and later in the video , watch and listen at about 2.01 when the CONTROVERSIAL PK is discussed. Esse is in my opinion one the greatest ambassadors of the game and again look at the position he was in to make that difficult 100% correct call and think on that even there he held off the whistle to wait and see WHAT might occur!

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jim
An interesting question and one that always exercises referee decision making to the full. In principle the referee can and probably should play *advantage* in such circumstances. I use inverted commas on *advantage* as the referee could make no immediate decision yet wait and see with the option of calling the foul depending on what transpires. The referee can also play a formal advantage (which is rarely advised) with the shout of advantage and signal. If the player squanders a realised advantage then the teferee does not go back to the foul although he can still take disciplinary action.
When thinking about this the terms two bites at the apple comes to mind. The phrase is used with the meaning that someone has had their shot at something, lost their shot, and now they are trying to get a second go that they already lost. Generally speaking, in law, once a judge decides an issue once, that ends the discussion. The same principle can apply in soccer.
So for me if by playing advantage the player get a clear opportunity at goal, unhindered by what previously transpired then one can argue the advantage was realised, the chance was taken and missed. Now it is judgmental in that in law the referee is entitled to go back to the original decision should advantage not materialise within a few seconds.
Another factor can be the manner of the foul. A late challenge that attracts the referees attention rather than the susequent shot or play will in my opinion be dealt with sternly. For example a player shoots and a defender lunges after the shot is away to make heavy contact with the attacker will always result in sanction. If the goal is scored then it will be allowed however should the ball go wide or saved more than likely the referee will caution / dismiss and award the free kick or penalty kick restart.
I recall last season a player through on goal in a particular game and he was fouled by the goalkeeper in his attempt to play the ball. Just at that moment the player managed to get a pass away to a team mate who moves the ball forward past everyone and then totally unhindered kicks the ball wide with his weaker foot. He hold his head in disbelief. Now I decided that advantage was fully realised so I went with the goal kick.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Jim,
As my colleagues have said, this is a tricky situation. One important factor is the quality of the 'advantage.' You say ''the attacking player is still moving towards goal with the ball, He then shoots wide.'' However you don't tell us if the player had completely recovered from the foul and was moving totally unhindered, nor whether the shot he eventually achieved was wholly unaffected by his stumble. For me, this is a critical factor in deciding whether the advantage had actually accrued or not.

If you think the player has totally and completely recovered from the after-effects of the foul by the time he gets the shot away then you would be entitled to say that he has had his advantage but squandered it. If however, you consider that the foul and stumble were a factor in him missing the target then you might decide the advantage had not been realised and award a penalty instead.

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

See Question: 31012