Penalty advantage

[Redref34]

I know we have spoken about this before however..

Situation: attacking player is taken out in the box as the ball comes across, ball breaks to another attacking player who has a good shot on goal which is parried by the goal keeper and out for a corner.

Is there anyone here who would be coming back and giving the penalty?

I judged the advantage accrued was as good if not better opportunity to score than the penalty would have been and was also a better opportunity than the attacking played who was taken out had.

Obviously the manager said he would have preferred the penalty but I said not if you’re striker would have scored you wouldn’t!

 

[one]

Was the application of the advantage and after thought or did you think it before the shot was taken?

As you said, we have taken about it before the the consensus was that unless the ball is going to be kicked into an unguarded goal from a short distance, give the pen.

 

[Redref34]

Was the application of the advantage and after thought or did you think it before the shot was taken?

As you said, we have taken about it before the the consensus was that unless the ball is going to be kicked into an unguarded goal from a short distance, give the pen.

In this instance, it happened so quickly that the advantage accrued pretty much straight away. However, it was not an unguarded net.

 

[RefRyanAus]

It is rare to get an advantage which is as good as or better than the opportunity of a pen. I think the general consensus is that the safest thing in most circumstances is to award the pen. However, you are obviously also entitled to decide that an advantage comparable to a pen has accrued. It’s just a much more difficult sell…

 

[one]

In this instance, it happened so quickly that the advantage accrued pretty much straight away. However, it was not an unguarded net.

If you had not thought about it before the save, then I'd say it is a matter of fact that deciding to play advantage was clearly not advantageous to the attacking team.

The two bytes at the cherry won't apply here because you didn't have enough time to blow the whistle.

My opinion anyway. Others may think differently.

 

[Russell Jones]

It is rare to get an advantage which is as good as or better than the opportunity of a pen. I think the general consensus is that the safest thing in most circumstances is to award the pen. However, you are obviously also entitled to decide that an advantage comparable to a pen has accrued. It’s just a much more difficult sell…

And the reason it’s a more difficult sell is because the alternative to the PK needs to be not just comparable but actually better

 

[socal lurker]

As described, I would absolutely be giving the PK.

 

[ERRAJI ABDESSAMAD]

I know we have spoken about this before however..

Situation: attacking player is taken out in the box as the ball comes across, ball breaks to another attacking player who has a good shot on goal which is parried by the goal keeper and out for a corner.

Is there anyone here who would be coming back and giving the penalty?

I judged the advantage accrued was as good if not better opportunity to score than the penalty would have been and was also a better opportunity than the attacking played who was taken out had.

Obviously the manager said he would have preferred the penalty but I said not if you’re striker would have scored you wouldn’t!

The prevailing opinion is that unless the ball is about to be kicked into an open goal from a short distance, the best option is to award a penalty kick.

 

[RefereeX]

Abit late to this... I've been sunning myself... but some referees this season have been advised to 'wait and see'.

Basically never signal advantage inside the penalty area, but delay the whistle if there is an clear GSO, and award the penalty if it doesn't come to fruition, signal the advantage in Mike Dean fashion if it does come to fruition. (maybe not the latter bit, but you get the point... and obviously this is only for immediate goal scoring chances)

 

[Russell Jones]

Abit late to this... I've been sunning myself... but some referees this season have been advised to 'wait and see'.

Basically never signal advantage inside the penalty area, but delay the whistle if there is an clear GSO, and award the penalty if it doesn't come to fruition, signal the advantage in Mike Dean fashion if it does come to fruition. (maybe not the latter bit, but you get the point... and obviously this is only for immediate goal scoring chances)

This advice is relatively common, both at higher and lower levels. I find myself violently disagreeing with it on a matter of basic refereeing principle! Outside of keeping players safe, keeping the game fair is job number 1 for officials. I really struggle to see how giving an attacking team TWO OGSOs, simply because of one foul in the penalty area, can be justified as fair to the defending team?!

 

[Redref34]

This is kind of how I explained it to the attacking manager.

The original tackle did not stop an obvious goal scoring opportunity - it was just a standard fouls in the area ball was long gone. The resulting play was a better opportunity - an obvious goal scoring opportunity that the player missed. To then take it back for a penalty in my view would have been harsh. That said I take the points on here and the point of the manager that he would have preferred the penalty.

 

[bester]

If you've pre decided to do wait -and-see after fouls in the penalty area..

50% chance of scoring from wait and see, plus 80% chance from a penalty= 90% chance of a goal being scored

80% chance of scoring from wait and see, plus 80% chance froma penalty = 96% chance of a goal being scored

 

[Redref34]

If you've pre decided to do wait -and-see after fouls in the penalty area..

50% chance of scoring from wait and see, plus 80% chance from a penalty= 90% chance of a goal being scored

80% chance of scoring from wait and see, plus 80% chance froma penalty = 96% chance of a goal being scored

Sorry that’s confused me. Must be getting late

 

[bester]

More chance of scoring if you give two bites of the cherry.

 

[socal lurker]

i think part of this is what you mean by wait and see. In my mind, in the PA we are not giving it a few seconds to see what happens like we might elsewhere. We’re using a slow whistle to make sure we aren’t taking the ball out of the net to give a PK to the team.

I don’t know if it is still out there, but USSF at least used to teach that the only advantage on a PK foul was an actual goal. I always thought that was slightly overbroad, but I think the rationale for the instruction was that it almost never happens that a team actually has and fluffs a scoring opportunity better than a PK after a PK foul. So the instruction will very rarely do harm. But referees erroneously playing advantage in the PA where the opportunity was not actually as good as a PK was much more likely to occur and incorrectly take away the Pk a team should have received.

 

[Redref34]

I personally think it’s a matter of subjectivity weather a kick from the penalty mark vs a one on one moving situation a few yards out is the better opportunity or not. This therefore calls into question the advantage rule in these situations.

 

[lincs22]

I know we have spoken about this before however..

Situation: attacking player is taken out in the box as the ball comes across, ball breaks to another attacking player who has a good shot on goal which is parried by the goal keeper and out for a corner.

Is there anyone here who would be coming back and giving the penalty?

I judged the advantage accrued was as good if not better opportunity to score than the penalty would have been and was also a better opportunity than the attacking played who was taken out had.

Obviously the manager said he would have preferred the penalty but I said not if you’re striker would have scored you wouldn’t!

Either decision works, but could you sell it?

That is the question for your authority.

 

[Redref34]

I sold it well by describing the above!