Should I have given a penalty?

[Viridis1886]

Mazy run from midfielder who managed to ride a couple of tackles. Coming in from the right hand side of the penalty area, defender steps across his path with a slight knock on the thigh. Again he manages to keep his balance and get a shot away which is knocked away by the keeper.

I didn't give a penalty as he managed to get a decent shot off but, in all honesty, if he had gone to ground I would almost certainly have given a penalty.

What would you have done?

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Mazy run from midfielder who managed to ride a couple of tackles. Coming in from the right hand side of the penalty area, defender steps across his path with a slight knock on the thigh. Again he manages to keep his balance and get a shot away which is knocked away by the keeper.

I didn't give a penalty as he managed to get a decent shot off but, in all honesty, if he had gone to ground I would almost certainly have given a penalty.

What would you have done?

It’s always going to be your judgement but if the player manages to get away a relatively unimpeded shot then I’m not bothered.

Youve essentially played advantage and he’s taken that advantage to take the shot. If he goes down then you can’t play advantage and it’s probably a penalty.

well done for not jumping on the whistle and allowing advantage.

 

[Viridis1886]

That was the discussion with the manager at half time. "He should have gone down".

My response: possibly but he didn't and he got a good shot away on target.

 

[Anubis]

That was the discussion with the manager at half time. "He should have gone down".

My response: possibly but he didn't and he got a good shot away on target.

What was the better option for the attacking team? the shot he had, or, a set piece dead ball from 12 yards?

of course only you were there, but given the choice of " a good shot on target", or, ' a penalty'' , its a penalty 8 days a week.


him going down, or not has absolutely no bearing on you deciding wherher or not a foul was committed

 

[Viridis1886]

What was the better option for the attacking team? the shot he had, or, a set piece dead ball from 12 yards?

of course only you were there, but given the choice of " a good shot on target", or, ' a penalty'' , its a penalty 8 days a week.


him going down, or not has absolutely no bearing on you deciding wherher or not a foul was committed

In your opinion does it matter that he has had a credible shot at goal?

Isn't that getting two bites at the cherry?

If I considered it a foul should I have whistled before the attempted shot?

 

[socal lurker]

In your opinion does it matter that he has had a credible shot at goal?

Isn't that getting two bites at the cherry?

If I considered it a foul should I have whistled before the attempted shot?

Advantage requires not calling the foul to be better than what they would get if the foul were called. Was the shot the player had available better than a PK? If not the foul should be called. If the shot available was better than a PK, then advantage was appropriate and the attacker squandered the advantage.

Too often referees lose track of the fundamental concept and let any shot overturn a PK and raw possession trump a valuable attacking FK.

I would never tell a coach a player should have gone down--that is why players dive: because referees don't call fouls that should have been called unless the player falls down.

 

[one]

Mazy run from midfielder who managed to ride a couple of tackles. Coming in from the right hand side of the penalty area, defender steps across his path with a slight knock on the thigh. Again he manages to keep his balance and get a shot away which is knocked away by the keeper.

I didn't give a penalty as he managed to get a decent shot off but, in all honesty, if he had gone to ground I would almost certainly have given a penalty.

What would you have done?

See this response and the entire thread.DOGSO after striker has got shot away?
In this case the referee brought play back for a foul.

The best solution is not to put yourself in that place to start with. Foul in PA, blow it immediately unless the ball is rolling into an empty net. You may still get a bit of complain from the attacking team despite giving them a penalty, but nowhere near as much as not getting a pen as well as no goal from an advantage you played.

 

[Dan56]

he manages to keep his balance and get a shot away

This doesn't sound like a relaxed assured attempt at goal. If we use the "two bites of the cherry" rationalization then we are really encouraging defenders to commit fouls. If we use the "well he didn't go down" rationalization, we are encouraging forwards to dive. It's simple: was the defender's tackle more than trifling? Did it upset the forward's rhythm or balance? Then wait a second to see if he still manages to score....if not, whether he gets a shot off or not, blow up and give the penalty.

 

[Anubis]

In your opinion does it matter that he has had a credible shot at goal?

Isn't that getting two bites at the cherry?

If I considered it a foul should I have whistled before the attempted shot?

Well, in those words, whats better to the attacking team?

a credible shot on goal?
or
a dead ball one on one central from 12 yards.

there are very, very, very, few times an advantage trumps awarding a pk.

based purely on the words, a credible shot on goal is just a play on, not, this is more beneficial than the set piece. Safe refereeing, as others have said, unless its, " wow, he been fouled but oft he cant miss", give the pk.
You get less grief if the pk is missed than off balance missed shot guy.

 

[Viridis1886]

Thanks folks. All the above words have been great and really helpful. The advantage should have been the penalty kick and not the shot on goal.

I should have given a penalty.

 

[Ben448844]

Its one of those situations where you will always have one team unhappy no matter what you do. Also, everybody who says that they'd give the penalty will have had this situation many times and not given one. Its just one of those situations.

Ideally you give the penalty and its missed, then everyone is unhappy but less so at you! Unwinnable situation imo

 

[Yampy]

I did some basic research on the use of xG and even a rudimentary study of the data leads me to conclude that a penalty is nearly always the call in these situations.
The xG value for a penalty is roughly 0.76. For an opportunity to score to have an xG greater than a penalty, the attempt on goal would have to be central to the goals and within the goal area (a kick would have a higher xG than a header, too).
Situations vary but my suggestion would be award the penalty.

 

[one]

Also, everybody who says that they'd give the penalty will have had this situation many times and not given one.

Oh absolutely. I am one of those. But it's not because I didn't think I should give one. It was because I couldn't think fast enough to give it.

The temptation is always there not to do anything, hoping he scores and no one complains. But majority of times I do call the pen.

 

[gvu_ref]

if this is grass roots or sunday league and you give a pen when a player doesn't actually clatter to the ground, you'll get complaints from the other team regardless of if you are right or not, "that's soft ref", "hardly touched him ref", "contact sport ref" and so on. been there, done that, got the t-shirt. in my experience, giving a soft penalty creates more havoc than missing one. its just your best judgement pal, don't dwell on it.

i would counter what some above have said of "foul in the PA, immediately blow" ... if there is an advantage i let it play out because a goal from open play is much more accepted by the defending team, than feeling hard done by from a PK. the key being its actually an advantage, not just that the attacker still has the ball.

player's expectations of what will get them a penalty at the lower levels is warped by what they see on the tele, the way penalty kicks are given willy nilly in the premier league is not helping us reffing the game at the lower levels.

use the few seconds you have to make the decision, be confident in it, and own it.

 

[Anubis]

if this is grass roots or sunday league and you give a pen when a player doesn't actually clatter to the ground, you'll get complaints from the other team regardless of if you are right or not, "that's soft ref", "hardly touched him ref", "contact sport ref" and so on. been there, done that, got the t-shirt. in my experience, giving a soft penalty creates more havoc than missing one. its just your best judgement pal, don't dwell on it.

i would counter what some above have said of "foul in the PA, immediately blow" ... if there is an advantage i let it play out because a goal from open play is much more accepted by the defending team, than feeling hard done by from a PK. the key being its actually an advantage, not just that the attacker still has the ball.

player's expectations of what will get them a penalty at the lower levels is warped by what they see on the tele, the way penalty kicks are given willy nilly in the premier league is not helping us reffing the game at the lower levels.

use the few seconds you have to make the decision, be confident in it, and own it.

I will counter that and say, over a season, how many advantages instead of pens do we see on motd?
one? out of 380 games.

why?

cos giving the pk is the correct, expected, and more beneficial outcome.

 

[gvu_ref]

I will counter that and say, over a season, how many advantages instead of pens do we see on motd?
one? out of 380 games.

why?

cos giving the pk is the correct, expected, and more beneficial outcome.

Again, typical premier league comparison.

How is it “more beneficial” to give a penalty kick when they could miss and put in the car park compared to giving it 3 seconds and seeing if they score naturally?

 

[Yampy]

Again, typical premier league comparison.

How is it “more beneficial” to give a penalty kick when they could miss and put in the car park compared to giving it 3 seconds and seeing if they score naturally?

Because if they don’t have the ability to score from a dead ball situation like a penalty, their chances from open play are very slim indeed. The ratios will be similar.

 

[Anubis]

Again, typical premier league comparison.

How is it “more beneficial” to give a penalty kick when they could miss and put in the car park compared to giving it 3 seconds and seeing if they score naturally?

Because that would be the wait and see technique
very very different to the application of advantage

there are very few, if any, more advantageous sitautions in our beloved game than a one on one dead ball set piece from 12 yards central.


proof be in the pudding, say to the manager prematch, hey, see if your guys fouled in the box, instead of giving you the pen, there is a gd chance i will play it on.
And see what the reaction is......getting a pk is like the holy grail in football..

 

[Kent Ref]

Is the shot at the time or the penalty the better chance to score?

The answer to that question determines your answer.

 

[Viridis1886]

... the attempt on goal would have to be central to the goals and within the goal area (a kick would have a higher xG than a header, too).

Interestingly enough this is where he was. Just outside the 6y box more or less central.