CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
now you're just showing off ;-)
I sometimes referee youth football when there is a lack of coverage in my area.
Today I had an under 16s game, played at a social rather than competitive level. Ball is knocked over the top, and an attacker and defender are chasing after it, towards the goal. Just before they enter the penalty area, the attacker gets a touch, but neither player has control and the ball bobbles a number of yards away. Both begin leaning into each other a little, which slows them down.
Eventually, the ball is roughly twelve yards from the goalkeeper and four or five yards from the slowly moving attacker and defender. The attacker gets a small margin ahead, and they both are still leaning hard with the defender now slightly behind the attacker. There's a bit of holding by both, but the defender appears to be doing far more than the attacker, which slows the attacker a little. However, the attacker manages to break free and sprints towards the ball, taking a touch out to the left, and somewhat off balance, blasts it into the side of the net.
What action would you take here?
I think I can see what you mean here but I can also see some issue.That's it....if there was a foul in a DOGSO situation, and there wasn't advantage, then attempting to play advantage doesn't mean there was no 'D' in the 'OGSO'. That doesn't make any sense.
I agree Brian 50/50 from both players, i would have given a goal kick.....Goal kick as you the referee obviously decided that no foul had taken place by allowing the game to proceed to that stage.
And that is why here when we play advantage there is no going back. You play advantage when there is a benefit the attacking team (not just a possibility of a benefit). And you have a few second to decide that. Once you decided and signaled, there is no going back.As said above, if you play advantage and then pull it back from the original offence in the eyes of the law the advantage never took place. So when then going back to give the penalty and deciding on DOGSO you can only take into account what happened up to the foul, not anything that happened after it.
But as I said before, don't play advantage in the area unless it is a VERY high likelihood of a goal being scored. I did it myself years ago in a semi-pro game, pulled it back for the penalty and all hell broke loose. Complete and utter lack of match control from that point on, and it took me a few games to recover my confidence. Had I given the penalty and they had missed no one would have been blaming me. Had I given the penalty and they scored no one would have been blaming me. Even had I played the advantage and then not gone back for the penalty when they missed the chance I doubt anyone would have been blaming me. But in playing advantage and then going back for the penalty all players, managers, coaches and supporters from one team were very much blaming me, and I can't blame them as I had stupidly put myself at the centre of attention.
That is the scenario I am not happy about. This would be a very massive misapplication of playing advantage. Had you not played advantage the attacking team will get a penalty and play against one less opponent thereafter instead of.... well 'nothing'.If you don't go back to the foul, then the advantage accrued, even though a goal may not have been scored.
Only because no player in the EPL would stay on their feet here and you'd have to give the penalty. When have you ever seen an incident like this one?This was an under-16 game. Can anyone point me to an EPL game where, despite being fouled, a player got a decent shot on goal, and the referee gave a penalty and a red card? I'd not expect a long list. You'd be lucky to get the penalty. Well done, Shorty - good decision!
The player is about to score a goal. he is fouled. I apply advantage but he doesn't score. The offending team is thanking me and i have a massive problem with the attacking team on may hand (I don't want to begin to think what my assessor will be telling me about my judgment of advantage). This is what i am not happy aboutHow is it a misapplication? The idea is that continuing play means they have an opportunity for goal that's as least as good as a penalty kick. I wouldn't worry about playing against an reduced team - all too often the team that loses the player lifts to compensate anyway!
what part of that aren't you happy about?
I get where he's coming from - although a goal is considered a more advantageous result than a penalty/RC, a shot on goal that goes wide is a considerably less advantageous result than either of those options. That's not the result that the advantage law was created to give.How is it a misapplication? The idea is that continuing play means they have an opportunity for goal that's as least as good as a penalty kick. I wouldn't worry about playing against an reduced team - all too often the team that loses the player lifts to compensate anyway!
what part of that aren't you happy about?
Only because no player in the EPL would stay on their feet here and you'd have to give the penalty. When have you ever seen an incident like this one?