Question Number: 17027

Law 5 - The Referee 10/1/2007

RE: Rec Under 13

Tim Naughton of Lompoc, CA USA asks...

As a begining youth ref, I had a couple close calls that were of significant consequence in a game I was reffing & I am looking for a ruling...

Twice I witnessed a tough foul from a disadvantage in the box. ... if the player in control of the ball had fallen or been knocked off the ball I would have called a PK... however, both times the player played through the foul & I awarded him an advantage allowing game to continue

The instances were different ... the first kid regained his composure, had another dribble and took a good clean shot at goal but the goalie made a nice save, the second kid kinda forced a rushed shot wide after he regained control

Most the soccer I watch if someone gets hit like that in the box & they will go down holding a ankle... My question is if I, the ref, allow someone to play through a foul because I perceive they have an advantage and they dont make use of this perceived advantage (ie they miss their scoring opportunity) then can I or should I and when, if ever, should I go back to the time of the foul and award the foul or in this case the PK ?

Tim

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Tim this is something many referees fail to grasp, even those in the top 1% of the USA. Two Fridays ago a State Instructor and Former State 1 referee asked one of our panelists during a training session if you can have two bites of the apple on things like this.

The answer started with the clinician asking the referee what the Law says. Specifically bullet 11 of the powers and Duties of the Referee in Law 5. That item is quoted below:

allows play to continue when the team against which an of offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original of offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time.

So we allow play to continue. Or do we? Let us consider this from page 69 of the .pdf Laws of the Game on FIFA's website:

Referees should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

The severity of the offence. If the infringement warrants an expulsion, the referee shall stop play and send the player of off unless there is a subsequent opportunity to score a goal.
The position where the offence was committed: the closer to the offence opponent?s goal, the more effective it can be.
The chances of an immediate, danger dangerous attack on the opponents? goal.
The atmosphere of the match.

In the USA we have a document called Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game. Paragraph 5.6 states:

Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 11th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.

The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player's team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.

The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the "advantage" is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again. Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)

NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.

The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.

The advantage applies only to infringements of Law 12 (fouls and/or misconduct) and not to infringements of other Laws. For example, there can be no advantage during an offside situation, nor may advantage be applied in the case of an illegal throw-in that goes to an opponent.

Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing.

A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is "calling the foul" and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.

[My note here: please understand I believe US Soccer is using the term foul instead of the word offense as stated in Law 12. I believe this is incorrect] quote continues

Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong.

There we have what is written about what the referee may do when he plays a supposed advantage. The thinking referee, which you seem to be because of the way your question is worded, is going to have a specific advantage in mind, he will also make the determination if the player has been disadvantaged by the original offense enough that the effect continues and prevents the advantage YOU picked to fail to materialize. What that means is the original crime, the offense, must not go unpunished should it be a success!

Once you, the only person in the world who may have an opinion regarding this matter, determine the advantage is realized you have cast it in concrete. Conversely, if it is your opinion the advantage has not materialized you must return to the original offense within 2-3 seconds of forever hold your whistle. Should misconduct accompany the offense you must deal with it at the next stoppage in play.

When YOU decide to play off an advantage YOU may determine what the advantage is and when the advantage is realized or not realized and you have 2-3 seconds to make up your mind. This is, in fact, two bites of the apple or having your cake and eating it too.

Advantage is a very complex issue and is only truly understood after many attempts that are successful and that fail. Normally we want to use advantage in the attacking 1/3 of the park more than in the central 1/3 and much more than in the defending 1/3. Further allowing advantage in the penalty area isn't all that good an idea because a penalty kick is a decided advantage at age groups above the very lowest.

In conclusion the clinician made this statement regarding advantage: An assessor should never have anything to say about a referee playing advantage. AND the only thing black and white about soccer is our uniform, at least it used to be that way.

I hope this short book helps a bit...

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

I can't add anything to what Ref Fleischer so eloquently stated here. Though I will give you a little food for thought.

Someone did a study once about penalty kicks. This was at the highest professional levels in Europe. I apologize to the statistician who did the study because I cannot recall who did it.

He concluded that roughly 85-90% of penalty kicks are converted into goals after considering the number of penalty kicks attempted and the number actually scored.

So before I ever decide to give advantage to the attacking team inside the penalty area I always think to myself - does this guy have a better than 90% chance to score a goal here. If I don't think his odds are that good, I will call the penalty kick. Now there IS a place for this so you shouldn't ever completely rule out advantage within the penalty area. An unmarked chance to shoot on a wide open goal from 5 yards out is a much better opportunity to score a goal than a penalty kick. So be sure you think about each decision carefully in the limited time you have before you blow the whistle.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Tim, since you're just beginning and this is a lower level game, I'll tell you it is usually unwise to give advantage inside the penalty area. I've done it a few times at this level but in each instance there was a wide open net and I felt certain the shot was better than a penalty kick as these kids at this age group miss over half of their PK's. and most of these kids don't understand advantage. They see a foul and want it called. Also, the shot on goal does not necessarily equate to the advantage being realised. In your second example it seems dubious at best. Just remember, advantage is probably the most difficult thing for referees to get right. You might do well to heed Ref Fleischer's advice, memorize the pertinent sections of Advice to Referees and watch your fellow referees and referees on television before you start giving advantage liberally.

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

See Question: 17233