Question Number: 35845

Mechanics 12/23/2024

RE: Professional Leagues Professional

Angus Macdonald of London, London United Kingdom asks...

In the recent Scottish League Cup Final the referee John Beaton gave a direct free kick just outside the box against Celtic's defender Liam Scales for holding Rangers forward Cerny's shirt. The holding began just outside the box but continued as Cerny had foot on 18 yard box/penalty area. Scales was also booked. Following the game, which Celtic FC won on penalties after ET there were claims from Rangers FC that a penalty should have been given under Law 12. Even demands for a replay from their CEO Patrick Stewart, though he wasn't in a position to make it so. A few days later on the VAR show, SFA Referee Boss Willie Collum claimed that a penalty should have been given due to the continuation into the penalty area. I'm not so sure though, since although said offence is addressed under IFAB Law 12 (3 - Discipline) it comes under the section titled 'Advantage' and I wonder if the rule only applies if the referee has played advantage initially, which John Beaton patently did not, since he awarded the direct free kick when the holding offence began. Any ideas on this?

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Angus,
Thank you for your question.

Advantage doesn't require a formal declaration to be applied. For instance, say a defender fouls an attacker near the goal, but the ball falls to another attacker in a split second and they score before the ref has the chance to blow the whistle. The referee will never signal or declar advantage here - but will award the goal.

Similarly, if there is a foul by defence just outside the PA, and in a second or so while the ref is considering whether to blow the whistle there's a second foul just inside the PA, we award the PK. Advantage hasn't been stated or signalled - but we still apply it.

Advantage simply asks - is the team who was infringed against benefitting more from stopping play, or allowing it to continue? Well, we allow it to continue from the first offence and punish the second because that's more beneficial. Even though it hasn't been signalled. Even if the ref was intending to blow the whistle - we now have a new outcome, and a new situation.

Holding is what we call a continuous foul. So, if holding starts outside the PA, but continues inside the PA, advantage dictates that we award a PK.

This is also specifically mentioned in Law 12.3:
"If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick"

This is different to, say, a player being fouled outside the PA and falling inside.

We always look at the point of contact. If, say, the attacker's lead leg is on the PA line but the shirt is being pulled just outside, we award a DFK, not a PK.

I haven't seen the incident, but whether it should be a PK depends on whether the point of contact - where on the body the holding was - continued into the PA or not.

If his foot was on the line but the holding was outside, it's a DFK, not a PK.

Have a great Christmas!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Angus
In my opinion advantage is not a factor here. Even if advantage was played it did not accrue to the fouled player so the referee would go back to the original offence which is either a direct free kick or a penalty.

The decision hinges on the location of the pull of the attacking player. Pulling and holding are what we consider to be continuous fouls. For instance a player could be held / pulled well outside the penalty area and if it continues INTO the penalty area a penalty kick is awarded.
This is spelt out by my colleague Referee Wright through his quote of Law 12.

Now every referee in the world has been there on a penalty line decision. Was the offence inside or outside the penalty area. 99.9% of referees get one go at making the call based on what was seen in a split second. A select few have use of VAR which was in use in this game.

The referee on the day believed the offence happened outside the penalty area from his viewpoint and based on the location of the players and how play unfolded. That was a good call by the referee. The question of doubt was it inside or outside the penalty area. The Rangers player looked outside to me on the first contact and then it continues on to the line and perhaps inside. Another factor is when was the call made? Was it called mid foul or was it called after the full offence was committed?
As the game was subject to VAR there was a review of the incident.
The VAR team went into a check to decide whether the incident was inside or outside and ultimately they decided to go with the on field decision of a free kick.
I feel that VAR failed to come to the correct conclusion which was this should have been a factual overturn, no need for the referee to go to the monitor and advise the referee that part of the offence happened inside the area with a penalty kick awarded. That did not happen.

Having said all that I would rather see a referee error decision on a doubtful one not corrected by VAR rather than VAR making an error to overturn a referees correct call. Ultimately it is still the referees game to call not VAR.

We want VAR to assist referees not to referee the game from a chair. In real time and in the heat of a game with a *big* call on a tight decision does VAR overturn the referees decision. I feel that there was sufficient doubt with time pressure to make a call to go with the referee. The forensic analysis afterwards was taken at leisure by the SFA and a conclusion arrived at that it should have been a penalty. That a learning point for the VAR process.

As to calls for a replay that is not tenable. It was not an error in Law just an error in judgement so is every error in judgement going to result in a replay? That is not going to happen here nor in other examples such as the recent infamous Liverpool / Spurs offside decision.
Its part of the game. A judgement mistake was made by VAR. The game has to just learn from it and move on.