Advantage, DOGSO, and the '06 UCL Final

[falcon.7]

A discussion with a fellow referee lead me back to the 2006 UEFA Champions League final and the series of events which eventually led to the sending off of Jens Lehmann. After replaying the clip a number of times, an interesting questions popped into my head:

What if Terje Hauge signalled for advantage and Eto'o did not score, say because he skied the shot over the bar? Would the Laws dictate Hauge would still have to send off Lehman?

The language is "denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity", not "a goal". If Eto'o scores we say the opportunity was not denied because the goal was scored, and so the proper punishment is a caution. In this case, a goal was not scored, but the opportunity was not denied either. I lean towards caution.

Nothing mind-blowing here, just some thoughts.

[boylanj64]

If advantage was given, the referee can not give the red card, as the opportunity was not denied, simply squandered.

[o5iiawah]

as i recall, hauge blew very early, almost immediately after the foul. Im sure Barca would rather have had the goal and Arsenal would rather have played with 11 men.

Once you, as a ref make the decision to play advantage you cant go back to penalise the foul unless its something that merits a card due to something like USB/VC/SFP


We've all had our fair share of attackers who shake away a defenders obvious PK-worthy foul but lash a shot wide. As Refs, we have to allow advantage if its there, otherwise you could find yourself blowing the whistle with the ball past the keeper on its way to the goal

[blackjack]

as i recall, hauge blew very early, almost immediately after the foul. Im sure Barca would rather have had the goal and Arsenal would rather have played with 11 men.

Once you, as a ref make the decision to play advantage you cant go back to penalise the foul unless its something that merits a card due to something like USB/VC/SFP


We've all had our fair share of attackers who shake away a defenders obvious PK-worthy foul but lash a shot wide. As Refs, we have to allow advantage if its there, otherwise you could find yourself blowing the whistle with the ball past the keeper on its way to the goal

This raises an issue that's crossed my mind a lot, esp. considering players like Drogba and Ronaldo as they constantly embellish contact in the box.

Say you're in on goal with a defender on your back. He grabs/tackles/impedes you, but you maintain possession. Now, if you keep playing, you get advantage signaled, but the quality of your scoring opportunity has been diminished, because the defender has either knocked you off balance, pulled you away from the ball, or altered your course to a narrower angle wide of the goal.

On the other hand, if you go down, you get a penalty kick, from which you're clearly more likely to score than you would be after shaking off the defender and taking the now less-good shot.

In that kind of situation, we're actually penalizing the attacker for continuing to play through the foul by giving advantage when he misses, and we're encouraging simulation/embellishment to draw the penalty, which the attacker logically deems a better chance to score.

I think this is one of the primary causes of embellishment/simulation in football. As referees, we need to recognize that an attacker playing through a foul in the box and having a shot go wide does not constitute advantage if the defender's actions limited the quality of the opportunity. We should allow play to go on, see if the advantage materializes (goal) or if it doesn't (altered shot goes wide/high/is saved). If the attacker scores, it's a legitimate goal. If he didn't, and a foul made his scoring chances less likely, we should be blowing for a penalty.

[boylanj64]

This raises an issue that's crossed my mind a lot, esp. considering players like Drogba and Ronaldo as they constantly embellish contact in the box.

Say you're in on goal with a defender on your back. He grabs/tackles/impedes you, but you maintain possession. Now, if you keep playing, you get advantage signaled, but the quality of your scoring opportunity has been diminished, because the defender has either knocked you off balance, pulled you away from the ball, or altered your course to a narrower angle wide of the goal.

On the other hand, if you go down, you get a penalty kick, from which you're clearly more likely to score than you would be after shaking off the defender and taking the now less-good shot.

In that kind of situation, we're actually penalizing the attacker for continuing to play through the foul by giving advantage when he misses, and we're encouraging simulation/embellishment to draw the penalty, which the attacker logically deems a better chance to score.

I think this is one of the primary causes of embellishment/simulation in football. As referees, we need to recognize that an attacker playing through a foul in the box and having a shot go wide does not constitute advantage if the defender's actions limited the quality of the opportunity. We should allow play to go on, see if the advantage materializes (goal) or if it doesn't (altered shot goes wide/high/is saved). If the attacker scores, it's a legitimate goal. If he didn't, and a foul made his scoring chances less likely, we should be blowing for a penalty.

That's a great point, but very difficult to do in practice. Remember, we need to officiate in the area as we do at midfield, and that extends to not calling things as well. If there is contact at midfield that you think the attacker can play through but he doesn't hit the greatest ball as a result, would you have called it back? If you wouldn't call it back at midfield, you can't in the area either. Certainly, hold your advantage call in the area until you're sure it will materialize, but once it does and if you feel the attacker had a fair crack at goal, he doesn't have a right to a PK just because that would be a better shot. We let fouls go at midfield in the interests of flow/game management/etc, we need to be sure we are viewing them the same way in the area.

[MassachusettsRef]

Blackjack's point, as I read it, is dead on. And it's a reminder that, barring an open net opportunity or some other situation where your whistle will take away a sure-fire goal, there's no such thing as advantage in the penalty area. If you see a foul by a defender that you believe is not trifling, then you call it. Period.

As for the initial question, I'm going to wait to respond, but, this thread might be interesting: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=354411&highlight=hauge

I haven't re-read through it tonight, but I'm sure there will be a lot in there that applies to the question at hand.

[GlennAA11]

Obviously this is a bit off topic, but it is a DOGSO decision. This week's USSF "week in review" (week 7) has a clip from a USL2 match in which TPTB (I guess that is Hall and Tamberino) claim a send off for DOGSO was in error for a goalkeeper who came charging out of the PA and fouled the attacker somewhat off to the side of the goal and about 30 yards out. There was a pair of defenders in the general vicinity. they claimed that 3 of the "4 D's" were not met in the case in question. I think they need their eyes examined. In this case without the GK fouling the attacker he had an open net to shoot on. Even though he is off to the side of the goal it is gaping wide open with no defender in front of it.

[DWickham]

FIFA has made it clear that when the goal is scored by the team (not just the player who suffered the foul) then the player committing the offense cannot be sent off. There had been discussion about whether a shot by the teammate of the fouled player constituted a separate scoring opportunity such that both goal and red card for DOGSO should be permitted. FIFA said no. ( Note, there could be a goal and red card for VC or SFP.)

The USSF 2006 position paper on Advantage and DOGSO (discussing the Champion's Cup incident) provides, however, that the red card cannot be shown because a goal was not prevented. If the advantage is allowed, but the team does not score a goal, revoking the advantage and showing the red card IS permitted. USSF's 2008 Lesson's Learned allowed revoking the advantage if the goal is not immediately scored. At the time, I had believed, like the poster, that the "opportunity" was the issue, not the goal. But, USSF approved the referee's decision when the shot missed goal to revoke the advantage, send off the player (and in that case award a penalty kick). This notion was specific in a 2009 Week in Review (Week 4): "in this case, advantage
would only materialize if a goal was scored directly from the shot)." There, the keeper had committed DGH and the ball bounced to a teammate. The referee allowed the advantage, watched the shot go wide of the goal, revoked the advantage, and sent off the keeper.

[falcon.7]

There, the keeper had committed DGH and the ball bounced to a teammate. The referee allowed the advantage, watched the shot go wide of the goal, revoked the advantage, and sent off the keeper.

I know we're not supposed to think about this, but I feel like this is near impossible to sell. Maybe this would work in a professional league, but I like being alive, and somehow I think that would be in jeopardy if I did this on a Sunday morning.

[o5iiawah]

This raises an issue that's crossed my mind a lot, esp. considering players like Drogba and Ronaldo as they constantly embellish contact in the box.

Say you're in on goal with a defender on your back. He grabs/tackles/impedes you, but you maintain possession. Now, if you keep playing, you get advantage signaled, but the quality of your scoring opportunity has been diminished, because the defender has either knocked you off balance, pulled you away from the ball, or altered your course to a narrower angle wide of the goal.

On the other hand, if you go down, you get a penalty kick, from which you're clearly more likely to score than you would be after shaking off the defender and taking the now less-good shot.

In that kind of situation, we're actually penalizing the attacker for continuing to play through the foul by giving advantage when he misses, and we're encouraging simulation/embellishment to draw the penalty, which the attacker logically deems a better chance to score.

I think this is one of the primary causes of embellishment/simulation in football. As referees, we need to recognize that an attacker playing through a foul in the box and having a shot go wide does not constitute advantage if the defender's actions limited the quality of the opportunity. We should allow play to go on, see if the advantage materializes (goal) or if it doesn't (altered shot goes wide/high/is saved). If the attacker scores, it's a legitimate goal. If he didn't, and a foul made his scoring chances less likely, we should be blowing for a penalty.

Well, same as in the midfield. Remember, a foul in the area that does not qualify as DOGSO is treated the same as a foul in midfield. The point of advantage is to keep the game moving and allow the attacker to keep the ball in a good area. If a defender is on an attackers back at midfield, we are going to allow advantage if the player can continue to dribble or at least pass laterally. In the are, we can apply advantage as a shot, or maintained, unimpeded posession after 2-3 seconds.

If the striker is still off-balance or reeling from the tackle, then there is no advantage and the orginial foul stands.

[jkc313]

as i recall, hauge blew very early, almost immediately after the foul. Im sure Barca would rather have had the goal and Arsenal would rather have played with 11 men.

Once you, as a ref make the decision to play advantage you cant go back to penalise the foul unless its something that merits a card due to something like USB/VC/SFP
l
I don't think you meant to say this. You can always go back and penalize the original infraction if advantage is not realized. Further, even if the advantage is realized you go back and caution the offender per instructions from Advice:

In cases where a goal or goalscoring opportunity has been denied by handling (DGH) or by a foul (DGF), but advantage has been applied, it is advisable to stop play as soon as possible once it becomes clear that the offended team has not been able to benefit from the advantage. This would be the case when, after roughly 3-5 seconds and at least one subsequent play, the team was not able to maintain a successful attack. In such cases, of course, the referee should return to the original foul and, additionally, show the red card for the denied opportunity associated with the foul. Because circumstances vary from game to game, there is no single mandatory decision that would be universally correct. The referee must use discretion in making the decision, based on experience, game circumstances, and common sense.

In cases where a goal or goalscoring opportunity has been denied by handling (DGH) or by a foul (DGF), but advantage has been applied, it is advisable to stop play as soon as possible once it becomes clear that the offended team has not been able to benefit from the advantage. This would be the case when, after roughly 3-5 seconds and at least one subsequent play, the team was not able to maintain a successful attack. In such cases, of course, the referee should return to the original foul and, additionally, show the red card for the denied opportunity associated with the foul. Because circumstances vary from game to game, there is no single mandatory decision that would be universally correct. The referee must use discretion in making the decision, based on experience, game circumstances, and common sense.

[jkc313]

Blackjack's point, as I read it, is dead on. And it's a reminder that, barring an open net opportunity or some other situation where your whistle will take away a sure-fire goal, there's no such thing as advantage in the penalty area. If you see a foul by a defender that you believe is not trifling, then you call it. Period.
.
I'm not sure you mean this. We've been browbeaten by USSF NOT to blow the whistle quickly for fouls inside the penalty area as a quick whistle will often result in the referee denying a goal. If you say you wait a second or 2 to see what happens and then call any foul resulting in a penalty kick I'm with you. I'm sure you've seen your share of quick whistles and then the balls in the net by the time the whistle is done blowing.

[boylanj64]

To continue though, once you have given advantage, it is because advantage has been realized. If you put your arms up and yell "play on," it should be because there is a clear advantage, not because you anticipate one.

[MassachusettsRef]

I'm not sure you mean this. We've been browbeaten by USSF NOT to blow the whistle quickly for fouls inside the penalty area as a quick whistle will often result in the referee denying a goal. If you say you wait a second or 2 to see what happens and then call any foul resulting in a penalty kick I'm with you. I'm sure you've seen your share of quick whistles and then the balls in the net by the time the whistle is done blowing.I guess I almost mean it, then, because I understand what you're saying. The scenario you're putting forward happens, but I feel it is unfortunately far less common than the situations where referees try to play "advantage" because possession is maintained in the penalty area even though there's no real goal-scoring opportunity.

My "barring an open net" clause could be altered to "barring a sure-fire obvious goal-scoring opportunity" to make it more correct, but I still think it's more important that referees remember that when they recognize a real foul in the area, they err on the side of giving the penalty and don't apply some perceived advantage that isn't even close to being as advantageous as a PK.

[o5iiawah]

I don't think you meant to say this. You can always go back and penalize the original infraction if advantage is not realized. Further, even if the advantage is realized you go back and caution the offender per instructions from Advice:

In cases where a goal or goalscoring opportunity has been denied by handling (DGH) or by a foul (DGF), but advantage has been applied, it is advisable to stop play as soon as possible once it becomes clear that the offended team has not been able to benefit from the advantage. This would be the case when, after roughly 3-5 seconds and at least one subsequent play, the team was not able to maintain a successful attack. In such cases, of course, the referee should return to the original foul and, additionally, show the red card for the denied opportunity associated with the foul. Because circumstances vary from game to game, there is no single mandatory decision that would be universally correct. The referee must use discretion in making the decision, based on experience, game circumstances, and common sense.

In cases where a goal or goalscoring opportunity has been denied by handling (DGH) or by a foul (DGF), but advantage has been applied, it is advisable to stop play as soon as possible once it becomes clear that the offended team has not been able to benefit from the advantage. This would be the case when, after roughly 3-5 seconds and at least one subsequent play, the team was not able to maintain a successful attack. In such cases, of course, the referee should return to the original foul and, additionally, show the red card for the denied opportunity associated with the foul. Because circumstances vary from game to game, there is no single mandatory decision that would be universally correct. The referee must use discretion in making the decision, based on experience, game circumstances, and common sense.

Did you mean to say that? Of course, if advantage is not realized, you penalize the foul. If advantage is given, you cant then send off a player for DOGSO unless the foul was using excessive force.

[boylanj64]

I guess I almost mean it, then, because I understand what you're saying. The scenario you're putting forward happens, but I feel it is unfortunately far less common than the situations where referees try to play "advantage" because possession is maintained in the penalty area even though there's no real goal-scoring opportunity.

My "barring an open net" clause could be altered to "barring a sure-fire obvious goal-scoring opportunity" to make it more correct, but I still think it's more important that referees remember that when they recognize a real foul in the area, they err on the side of giving the penalty and don't apply some perceived advantage that isn't even close to being as advantageous as a PK.

Agreed, the advantage standard should be "are they more likely to score RIGHT NOW, or on a PK." Certainly, an advantage call looks good and we hate calling back a goal, but the idea is to give maximum benefit to the aggrieved party, not to rub our egos.