| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition 09:16 - Nov 19 with 11182 views | artsbossbeard |
Right, over the weekend I was cajoled into reffing a friendly for the boys team, which in fairness, I don't mind doing from time to time.
Anyhoo, one of my lads was fouled in the area. Absolute stonewaller, however, from the foul and with me looking to play the advantage, the ball squirmed across the six yard area and to the feet of one of my boys who somehow pulled the ball wide.
FYI: If the ball across would have ended up at the feet of a defender, I'd have blown for penalty.
So, after the game I was given 2 pieces of constructive criticism on the decision:
1. "You should have blown for the foul straight away - a foul in the box is a penalty"
2. "You should've still given the penalty as we didn't score".
I'm dismissing #2 as madness (right?) but what say you, fellow Clive Thomas's?? |  |
| Please note: prior to hitting the post button, I've double checked for anything that could be construed as "Anti Semitic" and to the best of my knowledge it isn't. Anything deemed to be of a Xenophobic nature is therefore purely accidental or down to your own misconstruing. | | Poll: | Raining in IP8 - shall I get the washing in? |
| |  |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 11:54 - Nov 19 with 3302 views | BrixtonBlue |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 11:23 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
You're replacing a chance denied with another chance, be it through continuing play or as a penalty. Otherwise you may as well just award an automatic goal (as is the case in Rugby with penalty tries for persistent fouling on the line). Which is unfair as a one off - the fouled player may not have scored, either.
The goal scored from an advantage is benefitting from that advantageous position, as scoring from a penalty would be. The compensation for being fouled in the box is receiving a relatively easy chance to score, not the goal itself.
IMO it's got to be one or the other, not advantage and then a penalty. If either is missed/saved, then that's the opportunity gone.
The position from the advantage has got to be a fair one, at least as good as a penalty. But that's a matter for subjective (if informed) decisionmaking by the ref. |
But you said the advantage shouldn't be OVER a penalty (i.e. greater than a penalty). Sorry if that's not what you meant and I misunderstood.
I haven't said anything about awarding an automatic goal. |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 11:55 - Nov 19 with 3295 views | Pendejo |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 10:27 - Nov 19 by Herbivore |
People keep returning to this idea of the ref not rewarding the player for missing but I think that misses the point. It's not for the ref to decide whether an advantage has or hasn't accrued because of the actions of the team who potentially have an advantage or because of the opposition team. If my teammate gets fouled near the centre circle and the ball breaks towards me it doesn't matter whether I fluff a Hollywood pass over the top or whether an opponent intercepts it before it reaches me, an advantage hasn't been gained so it's a free-kick. With a penalty, a free shot at goal, it's hard to conceive of an advantage over that which isn't a goal so for me it should be pulled back. If a situation like this happened against West Brom on Friday we'd all be screaming for a penalty and the ref would rightly be criticised for not giving one. |
Its about possession not what you do with the ball.
In the centre circle scenario, you gain possession thus have the advantage, if you fluff it that's your bad luck. If, however, due to lack of balance etc. you can't do anything good with it... then pull it back.
For advantage is having the time to control the ball and play it... which OP makes clear. Your example doesn't quite. |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:31 - Nov 19 with 3260 views | Garv |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 09:49 - Nov 19 by Pendejo |
The shot was taken - that is the advantage.
The fact it was missed is fortuitous [good for defending team, bad for attacking team]
Advantage doesn't mean a goal MUST be scored. Advantage means that despite an infringement of the rules the referee may play on if he thinks the team fouled against will be in as good as or better position than if the whistle is blown.
OP says keeper on back side, ball in 6 yard box, striker with an open goal. 9 times out of 10 this would be a goal, the moment the attacker hits the ball advantage has been satisfied, the fact he misses... well boo hoo. |
What if the ball drops to Drissa Diallo? |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:52 - Nov 19 with 3256 views | FrimleyBlue |
We had a decision which i'd be interested to know peoples views
Striker in on goal, keeper stands ground, striker lobs keeper. There's a collision as keeper physically can't go anywhere, the ball is going in but cleared off the line... Penalty was given for the keeper interference.
Is that correct in your view? |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:56 - Nov 19 with 3238 views | Keno |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:52 - Nov 19 by FrimleyBlue |
We had a decision which i'd be interested to know peoples views
Striker in on goal, keeper stands ground, striker lobs keeper. There's a collision as keeper physically can't go anywhere, the ball is going in but cleared off the line... Penalty was given for the keeper interference.
Is that correct in your view? |
The the keeper was interfering with the striker he should have been red carded
No place for that on the football pitch |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:03 - Nov 19 with 3227 views | BrixtonBlue |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:52 - Nov 19 by FrimleyBlue |
We had a decision which i'd be interested to know peoples views
Striker in on goal, keeper stands ground, striker lobs keeper. There's a collision as keeper physically can't go anywhere, the ball is going in but cleared off the line... Penalty was given for the keeper interference.
Is that correct in your view? |
It's another grey area isn't it? I've seen loads of situations where a striker has run into the keeper but no pen given... as the ball then went out of play. But technically it is still a foul on the striker regardless of where the ball ends up, isn't it? | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:04 - Nov 19 with 3223 views | GlebeTractor |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:52 - Nov 19 by FrimleyBlue |
We had a decision which i'd be interested to know peoples views
Striker in on goal, keeper stands ground, striker lobs keeper. There's a collision as keeper physically can't go anywhere, the ball is going in but cleared off the line... Penalty was given for the keeper interference.
Is that correct in your view? |
Yes. If he has missed the ball and collided with the player.
Wouldn't book him though, as player is obviously covering behind the keeper so not DOGSO. |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:13 - Nov 19 with 3210 views | Guthrum |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 11:54 - Nov 19 by BrixtonBlue |
But you said the advantage shouldn't be OVER a penalty (i.e. greater than a penalty). Sorry if that's not what you meant and I misunderstood.
I haven't said anything about awarding an automatic goal. |
In the sense that you should not have two chances at scoring after the foul (advantage and then a penalty if the former not converted). A foul in the box does not guarantee a goal, just a (single) good shot at one.
If the advantage position happens to be marginally better (e.g. closer than 12 yards, 'keeper not in a good position) then that merely offsets the fact the ball is moving and the striker not set and composed. Not worth splitting hairs about in what has to be a very rapid decision.
The automatic goal thing was just because, as Herbs was saying, the only thing more advantageous than a penalty is an actual goal, thus arguing to bring it back to the spot if one is not scored. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:17 - Nov 19 with 3201 views | Herbivore |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 10:42 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
But it shouldn't be an advantage over a penalty, but equivalent to one (e.g. receiving the ball 5 or 10 yards out with only the 'keeper in the way). Indeed advantage could result in a better position than when the foul occurred - or, for that matter, a closer and less-easily-saved chance even than a penalty.
But that's a split-second, subjective decision by the ref. Which makes the whole thing extremely woolly.
And of course we'd all be screaming for a penalty - as partisan followers of the aggrieved team. Equally we'd all be laughing if WB had an advantage and missed. |
The very nature of 'advantage' suggests to me that it should put you in a preferable position to that which you'd have if a decision is given, but even for argument's sake of we accept that it needs to be at least as good then I still then a penalty is a bit of a special case. A chance to hit a stationary ball with almost unlimited time to pick your spot, no chance of being impeded by an opponent, the goalie can't even come off his line, and you get to pick who takes it. It really doesn't get much, if any, better than that on a football pitch in terms of a clear goalscoring chance. That's why I think you give it a couple of seconds and then blow, which is fine and well within the rules. Outside the box you often see free-kicks given after more than one pass has been made when an advantage that looks on doesn't materialise, a penalty should be no different. |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:18 - Nov 19 with 3203 views | Guthrum |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:03 - Nov 19 by BrixtonBlue |
It's another grey area isn't it? I've seen loads of situations where a striker has run into the keeper but no pen given... as the ball then went out of play. But technically it is still a foul on the striker regardless of where the ball ends up, isn't it? |
Very grey, I'd say.
Altho could it be argued that, as the ball was already on its way towards (and on target to go into) the goal, did the 'keeper actually interfere with the striker? The ball was no longer under the latter's control. However, it could, perhaps, have prevented him getting another chance from the goal-line clearance. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:22 - Nov 19 with 3193 views | FrimleyBlue |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:03 - Nov 19 by BrixtonBlue |
It's another grey area isn't it? I've seen loads of situations where a striker has run into the keeper but no pen given... as the ball then went out of play. But technically it is still a foul on the striker regardless of where the ball ends up, isn't it? |
See this is where I'm not sure
If you're going at a defender and shoot and defender takes you out, 9/10 times the shot is counted but no freekick
So imo the keeper is doing no different | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:22 - Nov 19 with 3192 views | Herbivore |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 11:55 - Nov 19 by Pendejo |
Its about possession not what you do with the ball.
In the centre circle scenario, you gain possession thus have the advantage, if you fluff it that's your bad luck. If, however, due to lack of balance etc. you can't do anything good with it... then pull it back.
For advantage is having the time to control the ball and play it... which OP makes clear. Your example doesn't quite. |
Disagree, in my scenario the ref would pull it back for a free-kick every time because no advantage has been accrued. If it was merely about possession as you suggest we'd see advantage played all the the time, but we don't because actually the nature of the game means that promising situations can be snuffed out within seconds by good defending or a poor touch and in those circumstances the ref pulls it back. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:29 - Nov 19 with 3186 views | WD19 |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:52 - Nov 19 by FrimleyBlue |
We had a decision which i'd be interested to know peoples views
Striker in on goal, keeper stands ground, striker lobs keeper. There's a collision as keeper physically can't go anywhere, the ball is going in but cleared off the line... Penalty was given for the keeper interference.
Is that correct in your view? |
Reminds me of a pub football incident many moons ago.
After clearing multiple dog turds from a pitch the Ref doesn't turn up, oppo manager steps in. We are 1-0 up and on 42mins have a striker clean through on goal. Ref blows for half time.
Tetchiness mounts. On 50 mins their striker goes in late on our CB as he clears from the edge of the box, but the ref gives a free kick to them. Chaos ensues.
They score from the free kick. 2 of our players walk off in protest never to return. We play on with 9 and lose 2-1.
Grass roots football at its best. [Post edited 19 Nov 2018 13:32]
|  | | |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:34 - Nov 19 with 3173 views | Guthrum |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:17 - Nov 19 by Herbivore |
The very nature of 'advantage' suggests to me that it should put you in a preferable position to that which you'd have if a decision is given, but even for argument's sake of we accept that it needs to be at least as good then I still then a penalty is a bit of a special case. A chance to hit a stationary ball with almost unlimited time to pick your spot, no chance of being impeded by an opponent, the goalie can't even come off his line, and you get to pick who takes it. It really doesn't get much, if any, better than that on a football pitch in terms of a clear goalscoring chance. That's why I think you give it a couple of seconds and then blow, which is fine and well within the rules. Outside the box you often see free-kicks given after more than one pass has been made when an advantage that looks on doesn't materialise, a penalty should be no different. |
If there had been defenders also in the mix, or the striker had had to maneuver to get his shot away, I'd agree with you entirely. But, from ABB's description, it sounds pretty instantaneous, also close and with the 'keeper not in a position to save. A penalty may also allow the goalie a better chance than from open play, if he's on the floor or in the wrong direction. He had his chance and blew it.
Looking at it the other way, is it any less frustrating than the ref blowing as the ball is about to fly into the net, then the penalty being missed/saved.
Outside the box, there's more time to let the situation develop and assess. Perhaps that's an argument for not playing advantage within the box at all, altho I prefer to see the game flow as much as possible and dislike deliberate attempts to "win" penalties. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:37 - Nov 19 with 3167 views | Pendejo |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:29 - Nov 19 by WD19 |
Reminds me of a pub football incident many moons ago.
After clearing multiple dog turds from a pitch the Ref doesn't turn up, oppo manager steps in. We are 1-0 up and on 42mins have a striker clean through on goal. Ref blows for half time.
Tetchiness mounts. On 50 mins their striker goes in late on our CB as he clears from the edge of the box, but the ref gives a free kick to them. Chaos ensues.
They score from the free kick. 2 of our players walk off in protest never to return. We play on with 9 and lose 2-1.
Grass roots football at its best. [Post edited 19 Nov 2018 13:32]
|
Experienced similar refereeing somewhere out in the wilds of Suffolk off the A12 north of Woodbridge, south of Lowestoft. Can't remember where.
Added to biased decisions was our multi-cultural team coming out of the changing rooms to see the home support numbered in its dozens; shaven headed, DM with red laces etc. They didn't need the ref's help as we were sufficiently scared to discretely lose.
Also we made sure the return was equal and opposite... i.e. we acquired a fan base to ensure similar intimidation for them on return match. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:39 - Nov 19 with 3165 views | Garv |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:52 - Nov 19 by FrimleyBlue |
We had a decision which i'd be interested to know peoples views
Striker in on goal, keeper stands ground, striker lobs keeper. There's a collision as keeper physically can't go anywhere, the ball is going in but cleared off the line... Penalty was given for the keeper interference.
Is that correct in your view? |
Would the situation have ended any differently if the keeper hadn't collided? The player had already had a strike at goal. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:41 - Nov 19 with 3160 views | SaleAway |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 12:52 - Nov 19 by FrimleyBlue |
We had a decision which i'd be interested to know peoples views
Striker in on goal, keeper stands ground, striker lobs keeper. There's a collision as keeper physically can't go anywhere, the ball is going in but cleared off the line... Penalty was given for the keeper interference.
Is that correct in your view? |
So are you saying the the striker lobs the keeper and then runs into him, and was given a penalty? Craziness IMO. The keeper is not required to get out of the way - if he has kept his feet still and the player runs into him, thats not a foul anywhere on the pitch. |  |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:47 - Nov 19 with 3156 views | Herbivore |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:34 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
If there had been defenders also in the mix, or the striker had had to maneuver to get his shot away, I'd agree with you entirely. But, from ABB's description, it sounds pretty instantaneous, also close and with the 'keeper not in a position to save. A penalty may also allow the goalie a better chance than from open play, if he's on the floor or in the wrong direction. He had his chance and blew it.
Looking at it the other way, is it any less frustrating than the ref blowing as the ball is about to fly into the net, then the penalty being missed/saved.
Outside the box, there's more time to let the situation develop and assess. Perhaps that's an argument for not playing advantage within the box at all, altho I prefer to see the game flow as much as possible and dislike deliberate attempts to "win" penalties. |
But why should it be a special case in the box where you don't give it time to see if an advantage accrues where as outside the box you acknowledge you can give it time? Judging the quality of a chance and whether or not it is better than a penalty within a split second is incredibly difficult, that's why for me you have to base it on seeing if any advantage is ultimately gained and with penalty decisions that is essentially whether a goal is scored imo.
Imagine a slightly different scenario, you have a game where there are two penalty incidents. In the first one a player is pulled down from a corner, the ball ricochets out to 20 yards and is drilled into the bottom corner through a crowd of players. Later in the game, a player gets brought down by a tackle in the box, the ball ricochets to his strike partner 18 yards out, he only has the keeper to beat but the keeper is off his line and makes a good save. Now, do you give a penalty in either, both or neither of those incidents? The chances are of similar quality, arguably the second chance is better. Under your interpretation of the advantage rule probably a penalty in both is right, but then you're penalizing the team who have scored a goal in the first scenario. If you don't give a penalty in either that seems unfair on the second incident given that its a sharp chance following a clear foul.
For me you have to leave it a few seconds to see what happens and, contrary to what Joe said earlier, I think outcome is important and not just opportunity. That's why more leeway was given to refs to let play go on for a few seconds to see what the outcome is before being able to pull it back rather than having to make an instantaneous judgement about the opportunity the attacking team might have. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:57 - Nov 19 with 3139 views | BrixtonBlue |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:13 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
In the sense that you should not have two chances at scoring after the foul (advantage and then a penalty if the former not converted). A foul in the box does not guarantee a goal, just a (single) good shot at one.
If the advantage position happens to be marginally better (e.g. closer than 12 yards, 'keeper not in a good position) then that merely offsets the fact the ball is moving and the striker not set and composed. Not worth splitting hairs about in what has to be a very rapid decision.
The automatic goal thing was just because, as Herbs was saying, the only thing more advantageous than a penalty is an actual goal, thus arguing to bring it back to the spot if one is not scored. |
I see what you're saying and can see both sides of the argument but am leaning towards Herb's assessment. Who'd be a ref, eh? | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:59 - Nov 19 with 3130 views | BrixtonBlue |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:18 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
Very grey, I'd say.
Altho could it be argued that, as the ball was already on its way towards (and on target to go into) the goal, did the 'keeper actually interfere with the striker? The ball was no longer under the latter's control. However, it could, perhaps, have prevented him getting another chance from the goal-line clearance. |
Or, indeed, following it in and thus stopping the defender even having a chance of the goal-line clearance. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 14:15 - Nov 19 with 3110 views | Guthrum |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:47 - Nov 19 by Herbivore |
But why should it be a special case in the box where you don't give it time to see if an advantage accrues where as outside the box you acknowledge you can give it time? Judging the quality of a chance and whether or not it is better than a penalty within a split second is incredibly difficult, that's why for me you have to base it on seeing if any advantage is ultimately gained and with penalty decisions that is essentially whether a goal is scored imo.
Imagine a slightly different scenario, you have a game where there are two penalty incidents. In the first one a player is pulled down from a corner, the ball ricochets out to 20 yards and is drilled into the bottom corner through a crowd of players. Later in the game, a player gets brought down by a tackle in the box, the ball ricochets to his strike partner 18 yards out, he only has the keeper to beat but the keeper is off his line and makes a good save. Now, do you give a penalty in either, both or neither of those incidents? The chances are of similar quality, arguably the second chance is better. Under your interpretation of the advantage rule probably a penalty in both is right, but then you're penalizing the team who have scored a goal in the first scenario. If you don't give a penalty in either that seems unfair on the second incident given that its a sharp chance following a clear foul.
For me you have to leave it a few seconds to see what happens and, contrary to what Joe said earlier, I think outcome is important and not just opportunity. That's why more leeway was given to refs to let play go on for a few seconds to see what the outcome is before being able to pull it back rather than having to make an instantaneous judgement about the opportunity the attacking team might have. |
I don't think it does unfairly penalise the first team in your scenario, because both have scored a goal. If the first team had not scored from the shot, it would have been justifiable to point to the spot, as the position was clearly much less advantageous than a penalty (a long way out, crowd of players). In the second instance, if the player had shot immediately on the rebound, then penalty (long way out). If he tried to work the ball in, then probably also a penalty as not enough advantage. In both cases it would have been reasonable to allow the shot to be taken.
In ABB's case, the striker was close, unopposed and merely mishit his shot - thus throwing away an excellent chance. That chance is, IMO, the outcome, not a goal (which may not have been scored even without the foul or from any subsequent penalty).
To some extent, there is a broader, philosophical question raised as to whether the benefit of any doubt should be given to the team with the ball (rewarding more attacking play), or to the one defending it. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 14:20 - Nov 19 with 3104 views | xrayspecs |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 09:38 - Nov 19 by GlebeTractor |
Correct, you can.
"PLAY ON, ADVANTAGE", wait three seconds, advantage? No advantage? Whistle.
That's the guideline I go by anyway, it's done me pretty well so far... |
Agree entirely. | | | |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 14:27 - Nov 19 with 3091 views | FrimleyBlue |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 13:41 - Nov 19 by SaleAway |
So are you saying the the striker lobs the keeper and then runs into him, and was given a penalty? Craziness IMO. The keeper is not required to get out of the way - if he has kept his feet still and the player runs into him, thats not a foul anywhere on the pitch. |
Yep exactly what happened.
Long ball over top, straight towards keeper, keeper stands strong as knows he won't get it if he comes out the box, striker lobs keeper, then falls over with keeper still standing in same position, shot already on target, cleared off the line. Penalty given a subsequently scored. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 15:32 - Nov 19 with 3055 views | Herbivore |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 14:15 - Nov 19 by Guthrum |
I don't think it does unfairly penalise the first team in your scenario, because both have scored a goal. If the first team had not scored from the shot, it would have been justifiable to point to the spot, as the position was clearly much less advantageous than a penalty (a long way out, crowd of players). In the second instance, if the player had shot immediately on the rebound, then penalty (long way out). If he tried to work the ball in, then probably also a penalty as not enough advantage. In both cases it would have been reasonable to allow the shot to be taken.
In ABB's case, the striker was close, unopposed and merely mishit his shot - thus throwing away an excellent chance. That chance is, IMO, the outcome, not a goal (which may not have been scored even without the foul or from any subsequent penalty).
To some extent, there is a broader, philosophical question raised as to whether the benefit of any doubt should be given to the team with the ball (rewarding more attacking play), or to the one defending it. |
See I'm not really getting your logic on this one (unusually). If you're saying a penalty would be awarded in the second scenario you are effectively allowing a second bite of the cherry. I get it's a tougher chance but that shouldn't come into it, either you play a possible advantage and pull it back if it doesn't transpire or you don't, for me anyway. I think trying to make instantaneous judgements about whether or not the chance itself is a better outcome than a penalty is deeply problematic. | |
| |
| You're the ref - weekend friendly edition on 20:14 - Nov 19 with 2960 views | longtimefan |
As a qualified ref in adult football, a point emphasised in the training was that you don’t look to play advantage when a foul is committed in the penalty area. Best to award the kick immediately unless a goal is certain to result, i.e. literally an unopposed tap in. Otherwise there is so much that could go wrong, as in the case you describe.
I’d also be of the opinion that once the attempt to score after the offence has failed you can’t really go back for the penalty, as the attacking team has then wasted the advantage you’ve allowed, | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
