You Call It Our Questions YOUR Answers AskTheRef.com

Soccer Referee Questions on Soccer Rules

You-Call-It 12

Question...

The score is 7-1 at the 90th minute and the losing team have just committed an offence against an opponent advancing on the goalkeeper who is alone at goal with no defenders between the keeper and him. The offence just puts the attacker off balance so you correctly play advantage. In your opinion time has expired just as he takes the shot from an off balanced position and misses. The offence is the attempt to trip and it happened in the penalty area just short of the penalty mark. Your match, your decision and your reputation...

Our Hint

Law 5, ATR 5.6 [USSF], Law 7, Law 12

Our Answer...

Here there is divergent opinion about what to do, real world stuff and those who answer test questions and both will argue how right they are in either case.

We'll look at both lines of logic and try to determine which course of action better suits The Game as a whole and not just our match today.

The first point of view begins with the match is over and the side up by 6 goals is going to run out winners regardless. No harm is done by ending the match there and then, filling out the match report and collecting the match fee. Yes we played off an advantage and he took an off balance shot and missed, who's to say he wouldn't have missed if he had the time to get set up.

The second way of looking at things begins in Law 5 with the advantage clause. It says [sort of] don't stop things if by doing so you'll do what the defence wants. If you don't stop things you have 2-3 seconds to see what happens. You play advantage for something really specific when allowing things to run because of a failed infraction in the penalty area, right? You should, because awarding a penalty kick is like giving a goal and because of that one thing you should have in mind as the advantage you want to see happen is a goal! Know this, there is absolutely no sense in awarding the advantage in the penalty area -- or at least announcing it to the troops -- unless there is indeed a CLEAR advantage to be gained, i. e., the player will definitely score a goal.

Yes, that is what you must see if you choose to play advantage in the penalty area off of a direct free kick offence.

The match has run its time. You have seen a shot go astray as a result of the player being off balance because of the attempt to trip while you were playing for advantage. This chain of events has happened within the 2-3 seconds the referee is advised to allow play to run [USSF ATR 5.6].

Right referee, this is where we separate the real referees from the "wanna-be's" because The Game as a whole rests on your next few decisions. The Game as a whole, not just this day's match -- Football as a whole.

Law 7 - The Duration of the Match demands time be extended to take a penalty kick. You have a situation where you saw a direct free kick offence given within a team's own penalty area and you announced to all present you saw the offence by playing advantage. If you end things now you applied the advantage for what?

Continued team possession?

Continued attacking play?

A pass to an open player?

A well taken shot -- brilliantly saved by exceptional goalkeeping? or

A well taken shot -- resulting in a goal?

A clear advantage to be gained, i. e., the player will definitely score a goal.

If the latter three eventualities were chosen as the advantage you saw your decision is easy in the first case and second, or is it? Consideration of the keeper making the save of the century as well done goalkeeper but remember that you still are running advantage and a goal didn't result, point to the mark and blow for the original offence. In the second case if there is no goal you MUST extend time for the penalty. In the last case, what you should be playing for, point to the spot.

Law 12 also mentions something about denying a goal by an offence punishable by a free kick. In our case the offence happened just short of the penalty mark [4D's point] heading towards goals [4D's point], no one was between the attacker and goalkeeper [4D's point] and the ball at his feet [4D's point] -- this meets the criteria for DOGSO!! But the match is over. Some referees think sending off a player will gain nothing in this match.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is our point is offering the question. If a referee fails to send-off this player he has an affect on two matches, the one he is doing AND the one in which the defending team next competes because the player must suffer a ban of at least one match if he is sent-off. Sometimes this ban is three matches or more depending on the disciplinary committee's decision.

There is another point to consider in this scenario and that is the league table. Usually goals for and goals against are considerations in breaking positions on the table. If the referee chooses not to return to the original offence and give the penalty he might just cause a side to advance or be relegated by the one goal for or against. Granted this is an out of the box consideration but, never the less, it is most valid and worth the mentioning to those saying the match is over, let's go home.

We feel in this case the penalty kick awarded in extended time is correct because the offence happened during the match and failing to deal with it in its entirety will [might probably] affect much more than just this match. We feel the sending-off must happen because the referee saw and announced he saw a direct free kick offence in the penalty area that denied a goal [he allowed the advantage]. The Law is specific here, we must send off the player for denying the obvious goal scoring opportunity. Failing to do so will forever ingrain in the players psyche what he did was approved of.

Thing is, every issue in every match comes right down to the Law and every referee is ultimately faced with knowing the Law cold so he may arrive at a decision based in Law and what is acceptable to that instant in the match. In this problem we offer the referee an opportunity to think off the field so he may arrive at the solution without the stress of the match at hand. What we want the reader to learn is: failing to execute a sending-off earned in the last second of a match renders the next match, in which that player competes, to question. In failing to offer the opportunity for a goal based on an earned penalty in the match's waning seconds the referee has harmed The Game, not only the match at hand. There are referees who will not consider this sending-off because it does not affect their match. There are those at the highest levels of US Soccder who feel any referee who FAILS to take care of this business fails his assessment, FULL STOP.

When The International FA Board introduced the concept of sending off a player who denies a goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick, and for denying a goal by handling the ball deliberately, referees were entrusted with its enforcement. Some referees choose to think they are allowed to get involved in independent thinking because it's just too hard to enforce this part of the Law in some instances.

This must not be allowed to happen

That was our Question YOUR Answer is...

Jed a Referee from Mid North Coast New South Wales Australia

Award a penalty kick to the attacking side. Extend time to allow it to be taken. Send off the defending player for DOGOSO by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick.

Stan Lagemann a Referee from Flower Mound Texas United States

Was someone watching my game last weekend? No, I guess not. Anyway, first things first...The attempt to trip is a direct kick foul and a penalty kick should be awarded, since the offense occurred inside the penalty area prior to the expiration of time. A foul is a foul, no matter what the situation is.

Now, to address the other issue. The defender should be shown a red card and sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The tripping resulted in throwing the attacker of balance when he was moving toward his goal and there were no defenders between him and the goal. 2007 Advice to Referees states at 12.36(b) that denying an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity by an offense punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick should result in a send off. There are four factors to consider when judging whether an obvious goal scoring opportunity was denied. These are found in 2007 Advice to Referees at 12.37(b): (1) not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul; (2) distance to the goal - the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it was a goal scoring opportunity; (3) distance to the ball - the attacker must be close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to continue playing the ball; and (4) direction of play - the attacker must be moving toward the goal at the time of the foul. Each of these conditions appear to have been met in the facts presented. Advice to Referees 12.39 states that even though a referee applies advantage, he/she can (and should) still punish the offending player after the fact.

AskTheref.com Educating and Amusing The Soccer Referee Since October 11, 1999

<-->

Soccer Referee Extras: Sunday, November 24, 2024
Offside Question?
Offside Explained by Chuck Fleischer & Richard Dawson, Former & Current Editor of AskTheRef

<>
Did you Ask the Ref? Find your answer here.

Enter Question Number

If you received a response regarding a submitted question enter your question number above to find the answer

Recent Questions

Click Go to view all recently posted questions