Question Number: 32131

Law 5 - The Referee 12/28/2017

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32124

I guess we are being to technical if we say that there was a denial of a goal from the specific shot taken - and it's just circumstance that the follow up sequence of play resulted in a goal.

Technically, even with the follow up goal, a goal was denied initially, so a red is not technically wrong.

But we all know that this not how we manage an event like this.

Still, it asks the question (and hence my post) " how long do we allow for a 'follow up' sequence to transpire that removes the red !

If the attacking team continued to be the team in control of the ball, even with 2, 3, 4 of more shots that are blocked after an initial denial, how long do we go before we pull it all up. If the advantage is still there with blocked shot after blocked shot after blocked shot!!!

Wild idea, but hey, this site is also about what we could / should consider in the outlier situations.

:)

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
There is no set time and it depends very much on the circumstances. Referee Phil Dowd was praised a number of years ago for allowing a play to develop over many seconds, a chance was taken. missed and he then pulled the play back to the penalty kick, sending off the defender. See1.36 on the attached video
http://www.footytube.com/video/sunderland-v-cardiff-city-270922
There had been a debate at that time about players going down too easily on penalty kick decisions and in this case Conor Wickham was pulled back by the arm, kept going for 4/5 seconds which is a lot inside the penalty area and then the referee brought play back to the foul and the penalty kick. Had Wickham scored it would not have been a red card for the defender as nothing would have been denied.
I believe the challenge will be selling the penalty kick and the red card if too much play time is allowed before bringing it back. The 'wait and see' approach can be used which buys a little time and then when the advantage does not develop the PK can be awarded. I also think that if there is no immediate goalscoring opportunity or likely to develop then thePK is the best advantage.
It also can be easier in the higher levels of the game where the foul can be reviewed and opinions given that it was indeed a foul, that every chance was given for advantage and as there was none to bring it back. Not so easy in a park game where there might be doubt about the foul in the first place with no hope of a review. The Sunderland decision would not be so easy to sell without review.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
if a goal is ACTUALLY denied then are we wrong in thinking that ONLY an advantage resulting in a goal is an acceptable outcome to NOT send off the culprit or not move forward with the PK! Given we now no longer automatically show the red because a PK will reinstate an OPPORTUNITY. The PK only offers a chance to score it is really not the same as a guarantee is it now?

While advantage is not constructed to ensure a goal only re-establish the opportunity taken away. I always consider just how GOOD that opportunity WAS that the foul thwarted and the reasonable outcome of subsequent events. A ball that in my opinion WOULD HAVE entered into the goal EXCEPT by illegal prevention gets EVERY aspect of advantage to ensure it does eventually wind up inside!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

It used to be, probably about a decade ago, that the USSF interpretation was that DOGSO applied individually to players.

However much of the rest of the world did not see it this way. And now the interpretation is that DOGSO applies corporately to the whole team. A goal is not denied unless it is denied to the team. Because after all, that's the point of this game, for teams to score points. Individual statistics are not considered in the Laws.

I don't remember what transpired to change the USSF opinion. Sometimes it comes as the result of a change in the Laws or something that came out in the old Q&A document. Other times the interpretation by the upper instructors evolves as they consider other opinions from around the world, or perhaps some upper level refs are instructed at international competitions.

I'm not sure how any of this applies to Australia, whether they had the individual vs corporate interpretation in the past or not.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Russell,
Your argument seems to mirror the one that, as ref Voshol mentions, was espoused for a short while by the USSF. As far as I'm aware, no other official governing body took a similar stance on a player who tries to prevent a goal by handling but fails to do so. While I suspect unofficial guidance from FIFA/IFAB sources may have been around earlier, the official position was given by the FIFA Q&A in 2004 stating that if a goal is scored despite a player's attempt to illegally prevent it, the player is only yellow-carded, not sent off. For me it's fairly straightforward - if a goal is scored (more or less immediately) then you only give a yellow card. If a goal is not scored almost straight away you stop play and send the player off.

As always it is up to each individual referee to judge how immediate it has to be but as the Carvajal incident has shown there is a tendency for some referees to want it to be a little bit too immediate, when waiting a split second longer could have allowed for a different outcome.