A&H

Was This Goalscoring Opportunity Obvious?

The Referee Store
Hi
Does not read he was waiting and seeing to me . What I read was that the player was fouled, continued on, got a shot away and it was pulled back for the foul. Had he scored the goal would gave been given. As I mentioned the quality of the GSO is always difficult. Was it a GSO or not. Shorty thought it was so nothing denied. If it was denied then a red card. If say the attacker thought he was now likely because of the foul not to get to the ball and pulled up is that a DOGSO. It is if the ref thinks that it is.
 
ok.....but getting a shot away after the foul doesn't suggest there was no DOGSO. Arguing the OGSO is retained is only when advantage is applied. It wasn't here.
 
shorty said:
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?
Click to expand...

if the player being off balance whilst he/she is getting the shot away is a direct result of the foul by the defender, then that's surely got to be penalty and a send off? the offence was either holding pulling or pushing as there is no mention of an attempt to make a tackle, and that's covered nicely in the laws i believe.
your question is , was the GSO obvious? ... from the way i read it, i have the attacker ahead of the defender and therefore in pole position to get to a ball and be one on one with the keeper, and for me that's a 'yes'
 
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.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think I can see what you mean here but I can also see some issue.

I determine there is an OGSO when the foul is committed. I play advantage which by definition must give the attacking team a benefit therefore there is even a more OGSO. But then a goal is not scored. So in all likelihood I have either erred in judging the OGSO or judging the advantage. Hope that makes sense.
 
If you go back to the foul, then the advantage never accrued. So the attempt at an advantage was unsuccessful.
If you don't go back to the foul, then the advantage accrued, even though a goal may not have been scored.
Thus, in the former, there is still a red card, not in the latter.
 
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.
 
If the player had gone down, I definitely would have gone with the send-off straight away. The reason it didn't come was honestly thought that they were both moving slowly, and if the foul hadn't occurred, the defender probably would have recovered and covered the goal. I only played on because I wanted the ball to go into the goal so I could sweep the arms, tell the defender to be careful with jostling with opponents potentially through on goal, and get on with the rest of the game.

In reflection, I definitely got this wrong. I was correct to let play continue - when I came back, I should have sent the defender. In fact, I stewed on it so much that in an adult match later in the afternoon I was quick to award a penalty and send off a player who clumsily clipped the trailing leg of an opponent who was shooting at a half-open goal from three metres in front of the goalpost. The shot only went wide because he was twisted mid-shot.

Arguably, had I gone with the decision everyone was advocating here in the youth game, it would have ruined the game. The other team were already up 4 - 0 and ended up winning 9 - 0.

The decision I went with in the later game, while occurring in the last minute and not having the ability to ruin that game, has ruined the player's next weekend, because now they have to miss a week due to an incredibly meaningless foul. FYI the other team were up 6 - 0 at this stage. The other team felt so bad about it, they protested that it wasn't a foul (which it certainly was) and deliberately fluffed the penalty. The defending team were threatening to walk off the field (even though time was only being extended for the penalty kick).

With these offences it's a complete case of the punishment not fitting the crime. In social leagues where one team is up three going on 20 - nil, it's absolutely stupid to be sending players off for soft fouls and forcing them to play short and miss the next game. The players don't want it, the family and friends watching don't want it, and from what I've heard, other referees in the branch aren't even doing it. I'll be closing out the remaining dates in the season (after begrudgingly covering this weekend's matches), and hanging up the whistle until I find that the Laws being used are compatible with my conscience.

Mods, I don't see myself using this account anymore, so feel free to delete or archive it, or whatever it is you do.
 
Come on man, seriously?

You're going to quit because you don't like the laws?! It's a game, you play to the laws as you would with monopoly, poker etc...

I'm sure there's no on here that doesn't disagree with some of the laws or at least the way they're written but football simply cannot be one rule for one and one for another, either based on ability or the match situation.

Imagine a team coming back from 4 nil down helped by you not sending off one of their players as you thought they'd lose, how would that make you feel!? I once played in a game where we won 6-4 after going 4 nil down so it can happen.
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
If you don't go back to the foul, then the advantage accrued, even though a goal may not have been scored.
Click to expand...
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'.
 
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?
 
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!
 
bloovee said:
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!
Click to expand...
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?
Unfortunately Shorty's decision was incorrect under the old LOTG- it's either a PK and a red card, or no foul, or advantage was materialised.

Under the new LOTG, if the offence was charging and not pushing then a caution is an option if it's a genuine attempt for the ball.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 about :)
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
CapnBloodbeard said:
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?
Click to expand...

It happens frequently - if Aguero had hit the side netting when City won the League in 2012, do you think he'd have got the penalty? (But then we're always asking why he doesn't go down more easily....)
 
If i give a player an advantage but does not score, then that is down to him not me as a referee in thinking should i have given a penalty or free kick. I give a player the advantage if he has a chance to score or make a pass for a team mate to score ( whatever the scenario) if the player then fluffs his chance then tough.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top