A&H

Was This Goalscoring Opportunity Obvious?

S

shorty

New Member
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?
 
The Referee Store
No I'll stick with goal kick. If it happens as you described I guarantee doing anything else will have players scratching their heads. Cultural differences or not.
 
Even at the point where the defender was clearly holding the attacker, preventing the attacker from getting to the ball, you don't think there was a foul there?
 
shorty said:
Even at the point where the defender was clearly holding the attacker, preventing the attacker from getting to the ball, you don't think there was a foul there?
Click to expand...
You were the referee not me. I wasn't even there, you were. What did you think?
 
FWIW I went with penalty kick and caution for unsporting behaviour for committing a foul for the purpose of breaking up a promising attack. There were no complaints about the penalty kick, but there was some questioning as to why a caution was required. I let it go for a second or two to see if the attacker would recover, but when it was clear there was going to be no ball in the net, I brought it back.

I was more after some guidance on what level of control of the ball the attacker should have, and how much closer the attacker should be to the ball than the goalkeeper before it becomes denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity rather than unsporting behaviour for committing a foul for the purpose of breaking up a promising attack. I've never had one I've felt this 50/50 on - it's usually either a clear caution or send-off in my mind.
 
Thanks. Based on the reaction of players on both teams, the crowd noise, and my assistants, the foul decision was correct, so your experience lets you down here. So back to the topic at hand, was a caution correct, or should a send-off have been applied, given that a foul was called?
 
So you believe that was enough for an obvious goalscoring opportunity, in spite of the distance to the ball when the offence occurred?
 
Yes barring in mind the keeper wasn't close enough to get it and there were no covering defenderd
 
shorty said:
Does anyone else want to have a stab with a sensible answer?
Click to expand...
Don't quite understand this remark. You've asked for an opinion on a forum. When you received one you didn't like, you asked for another while degrading the first comment?

As for the scenario you described, would the player have scored if the defender was taken out of the scene? If so, then it should've been a red card. From the way you described it, this is how it seems.

For me, I agree with @es1 and think it should've been a red card if you awarded a penalty kick.
 
CA said:
Don't quite understand this remark. You've asked for an opinion on a forum. When you received one you didn't like, you asked for another while degrading the first comment?
Click to expand...

It was a one-sentence answer, based on how long play had continued rather than the substance of what had been described. Compare it to your answer, and the one before that from es1. However, this seems to me to be more a defence of who was answering rather than what was said.

If that's what passes as solid commentary around here, I'm out.
 
shorty said:
Thanks. Based on the reaction of players on both teams, the crowd noise, and my assistants, the foul decision was correct, so your experience lets you down here. So back to the topic at hand, was a caution correct, or should a send-off have been applied, given that a foul was called?
Click to expand...
No your description lets you down. If it was a foul and it was a holding offence then you should, under current law, have sent the player off. You said both were holding but then the attacker broke free. At that point, you cannot call the foul as the attack will want to know why you haven't allowed them an advantage and yes I know, inside the penalty area, there is no advantage unless the player is about to play the ball into an open goal. They won't see it that way.
shorty said:
It was a one-sentence answer, based on how long play had continued rather than the substance of what had been described. Compare it to your answer, and the one before that from es1. However, this seems to me to be more a defence of who was answering rather than what was said.

If that's what passes as solid commentary around here, I'm out.
Click to expand...
Bwhahaha, I have no friends here.

Bye out
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Bwhahaha, I have no friends here.
Click to expand...
He really doesn't ... :rolleyes::)

From what you described, if you deem it a foul then I think it's probably an OGSO. As others have said, if you take the infringement away completely, would the attacker have ended up with a clear opportunity to shoot at goal from a credible position .. sounds like yes. But, despite your best efforts to describe it fully, it's tough to be certain.
 
I'm not a fan of playing advantage in the penalty area unless the attacker has an open goal. The problem is you give the attacker two bites of the cheery and that just doesn't sit comfortably with me. If I did play advantage for a holding offence and then came back for a penalty I would 100% be sending off as if it wasn't an obvious goal scoring opportunity I would have just given the penalty and not played the advantage in the first place.
 
Hi
If you went with the foul then that is your call. Read to me like two players having a go at each other much like a challenge in the Wales v Belguim game where a welsh player had his hand on the front of the Belgian defenders shirt and the defender had grip of the attackers arm. AR gave a DFK to the defender.
Now the next bit is whether the four conditions for a DOGSO were met or not. I suspect that as the attacker got a GSO away then it was not denied so a caution was call. Quality of the GSO is always a difficult one to make a decision on. Had he stopped going after the ball it was a much more difficult one.
 
In the scenario where the attacker hasn't yet taken control, you need to ask yourself:
- how likely is he to take control? (ie is it a ball coming across at a difficult angle?)
- if he takes control, will he have an OGSO (will the other criteria be met?)
As always, take the defender committing the foul out of the equation.

Here, the ball is on the ground 4-5 yards in front of the attacker, so easy to control, and the keeper is too far away to make it a 50-50 ball. So, likely to take control - and the position sounds like an OGSO situation.
So all that's left is deciding if there's a foul.

Brian's answers seem to have been a little less helpful than he usually delivers....saying you should have blown your whistle first is not correct. i bet from last contact to shot would have been less than half a second, and you're certainly not going to blow your whistle there but you're going to 'wait and see'.
Which is difficult - because then you need to decide if the attacker is no longer being disadvantaged in any way by the foul ( ball is still easy t control and he isn't in an inferior position nor off balance). If that is the case, then the shot is advantage. If it's a desperate shot after the defender has forced him into a poorer position/balance/control, then no advantage.

With the defender being behind and holding it sounds like a likely foul, but it's YHTBT.

There's no case for a caution here

Goldfish said:
Hi
. I suspect that as the attacker got a GSO away then it was not denied so a caution was call. Quality of the GSO is always a difficult one to make a decision on. Had he stopped going after the ball it was a much more difficult one.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. He got the shot because he was 'waiting and seeing'. A desperate shot doesn't mean no DOGSO.
 
HM he says he let it continue for a second or two. That's too long. Once the attacker breaks free and has the GSO, the incident is over.

Not as helpful as usual as I was busy packing. Will be on my way to Paris for a week in less than 4 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top