PK or Play on

[o5iiawah]

It always pains me to agree with a Tarheel, but I think he's correct. The way I read what USSF has written for us is that the only thing that is advantage in the penalty area is a goal - not just a shot on goal. If the foul you're looking at leads to a shot and the shot misses, then the advantage wasn't realized and if you're within the advantage "time window" then you call the PK.

Thats very reasonable...it would make sense in the PA to interpret materialized advantage as a goal. The attackers have had a foul against them and the only thing I can think of that they would rather have over a goal is an empty-net. I'd say that if there is a foul in the area, advantage is only realized when there is a goal.

[ref47]

i agree with sam on this. the advantage call locks you into letting that team have a good opportunity to attack on goal. it is not a guarantee that a goal will be scored. that is why the "silent advantage" in the pa was discussed before. if you do not announce that advantage is being applied and a goal is not immediately scored, you can then call the pk. advantage is always about opportunity, not about scoring, even in the pa.

[refmedic]

Didn't the original fouler catch back up to the attacker in this scenario? Just because the attacker didn't do what we expected him to do (take a shot), doesn't mean we penalize HIM for it, he was the one who was fouled. In addition, I'm interested in the fact that it was the original fouler who caught up to this attacker and shouldered him off the ball. It seems as though the foul did exactly as it was designed to, and that was to slow the attacker up long enough to catch back up to him, or to knock him off balance enough to ruin the scoring opportunity. THis fouler accomplished his goal, and slowed the attacker up long enough to catch up and win the ball. We should not be rewarding his foul play. The advantage to having the foul not called (the OPPORTUNITY to score) did not materialize here, and IMO not due to the attacker, and the penalty should be awarded.

I'm not in agreement that the only advantage in the PA is a scored goal. If this attacker breaks free from the foul and makes a beautiful play only to shoot and miss, we aren't going to award a penalty because he made a bad play. We shouldn't penalize the victim because they didn't do what we expected them to do. Since we should be weary of advantage in the PA in the first place, this should be called back for a PK. When applying advantage, we should not only be recognizing that the foul occurred, but also evaluating what the PURPOSE of the foul is. If the foul, however minor, accomplishes it's purpose (not just by knocking the player over, but by slowing or interrupting an attack), then there was no advantage after all.

[o5iiawah]

Didn't the original fouler catch back up to the attacker in this scenario? Just because the attacker didn't do what we expected him to do (take a shot), doesn't mean we penalize HIM for it, he was the one who was fouled. In addition, I'm interested in the fact that it was the original fouler who caught up to this attacker and shouldered him off the ball. It seems as though the foul did exactly as it was designed to, and that was to slow the attacker up long enough to catch back up to him, or to knock him off balance enough to ruin the scoring opportunity. THis fouler accomplished his goal, and slowed the attacker up long enough to catch up and win the ball. We should not be rewarding his foul play. The advantage to having the foul not called (the OPPORTUNITY to score) did not materialize here, and IMO not due to the attacker, and the penalty should be awarded.

I'm not in agreement that the only advantage in the PA is a scored goal. If this attacker breaks free from the foul and makes a beautiful play only to shoot and miss, we aren't going to award a penalty because he made a bad play. We shouldn't penalize the victim because they didn't do what we expected them to do. Since we should be weary of advantage in the PA in the first place, this should be called back for a PK. When applying advantage, we should not only be recognizing that the foul occurred, but also evaluating what the PURPOSE of the foul is. If the foul, however minor, accomplishes it's purpose (not just by knocking the player over, but by slowing or interrupting an attack), then there was no advantage after all.

Right, but since play is slowed, it gives the keeper more time to react and has the striker off-balance, plus the striker now has a defender on his neck. You have to ask yourself, what is a better scoring opportunity? the play at hand or a PK? If the stiker is one-on-one with the keeper at the top of the box and the keeper takes him out, only for the striker to regain, dribble, and shoot wide of an empty net, then thats a good advantage played for the attacking team.

In a busy box such as the one described by the OP, I think a stoppage is merited if the ball doesn't hit the bag.

[Guy Fawkes]

I don't disagree, but I think you've got to make that decision before the shot is taken, or use silent advantage until after, not say "advantage", and then call it back after the shot goes wide. If I were a defender I'd have argued.

[refereejoe]

Just because a shot on goal is missed does not mean that advantage did not materialize.

Only if the original foul or some other unforseen, purely incidental interference impacts the natural outcome has advantage not materialized.

Tarheel, in your scenario the shot on goal that is stopped IS the materialization of advantage. You incorrectly awarded a PK, regardless of how you felt about the call or the lack of dissent. Swallow your pride and learn from your mistake.

[IASocFan]

...Tarheel, in your scenario the shot on goal that is stopped IS the materialization of advantage. You incorrectly awarded a PK, regardless of how you felt about the call or the lack of dissent. Swallow your pride and learn from your mistake.

Disagree!

Just because the attacking team got off a low percentage shot before you got the whistle to your mouth and blown, you want to penalize the fouled team! You also don't want to penalize a team by taking the ball out of the net for a golazo. I rather give a team two shots at the goal than penalize the fouled team. However, they better get a shot off quickly because the whistle is going to be blown.

[Guy Fawkes]

You understand he yelled "PLAY ON" immediately preceding the shot, which apparently went right at goalkeeper and thusly was surely a pretty good chance?

My question is, was the advantage called back because the shot missed or because the shot was too low-percentage in the first place? My opinion is, if it's the former, it's an incorrect call, but if it's the latter, it's correct.

[refereejoe]

Disagree!

Just because the attacking team got off a low percentage shot before you got the whistle to your mouth and blown, you want to penalize the fouled team! You also don't want to penalize a team by taking the ball out of the net for a golazo. I rather give a team two shots at the goal than penalize the fouled team. However, they better get a shot off quickly because the whistle is going to be blown.

That isn't the scenario he describes. Tarheel explicitly stated that he called "Play on, advantage," watched the subsequent shot be stopped by the GK, and then blew the whistle for the original foul. His argument is that because the goal was not scored, advantage was not materialized. This is WRONG. A goal need not be scored for advantage to materialize, play just needs to continue on to its natural conclusion unhibited by foul play or unforeseen interference.

The scenario you describe is one in which advantage is never applied. Instead, the referee has decided to blow the whistle but has yet to do so. This is VERY different than the original scenario.

[o5iiawah]

That isn't the scenario he describes. Tarheel explicitly stated that he called "Play on, advantage," watched the subsequent shot be stopped by the GK, and then blew the whistle for the original foul. His argument is that because the goal was not scored, advantage was not materialized. This is WRONG. A goal need not be scored for advantage to materialize, play just needs to continue on to its natural conclusion unhibited by foul play or unforeseen interference.

The scenario you describe is one in which advantage is never applied. Instead, the referee has decided to blow the whistle but has yet to do so. This is VERY different than the original scenario.

So to keep things straight, you argue that since there was not a clear advantage to the attacking side (by letting play continue vs. a PK) then the whistle should have gone immediately. Since the box sounds like it was a busy place, i would be very reluctant to let play materialize. I think in this instance, a hurried striker with an on-rushing keeper would rather have a penalty.
Of course, we've been talking about this for a few days over a play which took a few seconds to develop. im sure we've all made worse mistakes.

[refereejoe]

So to keep things straight, you argue that since there was not a clear advantage to the attacking side (by letting play continue vs. a PK) then the whistle should have gone immediately.Only if the referee has enough information at that moment in time to decide that the foul is not trifling and play should be stopped. It could very well be that in the immediate second or two after the contact that play develops such that the foul is no longer meaningful. An astute referee will allow himself this very brief hestitation to ensure he has all of the facts connected to the play before making his decision (not even 2-3 seconds in reality).

Some have confused this hestitation to mean a "silent advantage." This implies that some type of decision has indeed been made and executed. In fact, NO decision has been made yet because there is a chance the ensuing play renders the original foul as trifling.

This is not to be confused with scenarios where all facts concerning play are accounted for, the referee has ruled that a foul has indeed occurred, and has applied advantage, announcing his decision with a signal. Once that process has occurred, there is no going back for the original foul simply because the shot on goal is missed or blocked without any other level of interference.

[refontherun]

So to keep things straight, you argue that since there was not a clear advantage to the attacking side (by letting play continue vs. a PK) then the whistle should have gone immediately. Since the box sounds like it was a busy place, i would be very reluctant to let play materialize. I think in this instance, a hurried striker with an on-rushing keeper would rather have a penalty.
Of course, we've been talking about this for a few days over a play which took a few seconds to develop. im sure we've all made worse mistakes.

I've seen dozens of so called "low percentage shots" squeek by keepers resulting in goals, alot of them on the tail end of fouls in the PA. I've also seen referees blow the whistle on a few of these same shots before the ball crossed the goal line.

I remember a clip from an MLS game that was in one of the "Week in Review" things that Brian Hall puts out. A defender goes down after challenging an attacker in the PA (no foul). While on the ground, the defender obviously and deliberately handles the ball to try and knock it away from the attacker. Alex Prus, in good position, holds the whistle as the handling pushed the ball to another attacker who took a shot that went wide. Just as the ball went out of play, Prus blew the whistle and awarded the PK.

http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/08LessonsLearnedWk3_clips/WEEK%203%20CLIP%2014.wmv

Brian Hall tauted Prus' action as entirely appropriate for a situation in the PA, (although Pablo Mastroani didn't agree). It looked to me like "two bites of the apple". It didn't appear that Prus gave any signal for advantage.

We could do what if's for weeks on this subject. I think you just have to go with your instinct about what is fair in the spirit of the game.

[Nesto]

I've seen dozens of so called "low percentage shots" squeek by keepers resulting in goals, alot of them on the tail end of fouls in the PA. I've also seen referees blow the whistle on a few of these same shots before the ball crossed the goal line.

I remember a clip from an MLS game that was in one of the "Week in Review" things that Brian Hall puts out. A defender goes down after challenging an attacker in the PA (no foul). While on the ground, the defender obviously and deliberately handles the ball to try and knock it away from the attacker. Alex Prus, in good position, holds the whistle as the handling pushed the ball to another attacker who took a shot that went wide. Just as the ball went out of play, Prus blew the whistle and awarded the PK.

http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/08LessonsLearnedWk3_clips/WEEK%203%20CLIP%2014.wmv

Brian Hall tauted Prus' action as entirely appropriate for a situation in the PA, (although Pablo Mastroani didn't agree). It looked to me like "two bites of the apple". It didn't appear that Prus gave any signal for advantage.

We could do what if's for weeks on this subject. I think you just have to go with your instinct about what is fair in the spirit of the game.

Copying from that Week in Review...
"New England at Kansas City (26:18). Clip 13 shows a clear penalty and the referee is well positioned to see that the foul occurs inside the penalty area. Optimum would have been for the referee to delay the whistle and await the outcome of the shot on goal. Due to the short nature of time between the foul and the shot, the referee reserves the right to come back and award the penalty kick should the shot miss. In this case, the whistle came a bit early. Use that extra time given to you by the Laws of the Game to your advantage. Compare this clip to Clip 14. In the second case, the referee awaits the outcome of the play and seeing that the attacking team will not have an advantage, the referee correctly comes back to the original foul and signals a penalty kick. Excellent use of timing and holding the whistle to see if a positive outcome will occur. Referee to the “Advantage in the Penalty Area” memo distributed April 11, 2008 from our office."

It was actually noted that the referee blew his whistle moments too early and should have waited to see the outcome of the shot first.

This comment from WiR makes it pretty clear what USSF would like us to do - after application of advantage, "the referee reserves the right to come back and award the penalty kick should the shot miss."

[refontherun]

Copying from that Week in Review...


It was actually noted that the referee blew his whistle moments too early and should have waited to see the outcome of the shot first.

This comment from WiR makes it pretty clear what USSF would like us to do - after application of advantage, "the referee reserves the right to come back and award the penalty kick should the shot miss."

There were actually two clips in that segment. #13 showed the referee blowing the whistle early, and #14 where Prus let the play run out and awarded the PK. That's the link I posted.

[dadman]

Sorry to muck things up a bit, but in TarheelRef's post (#35 here (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16452999&postcount=35)), the PK was awarded for the penal foul suffered by the non-shooting player (attacker 1), yes? Doesn't that materially change the situation and possibly account for the lack of argument from the defending team? Advantage given to see if the teammate can score, then PK awarded for the foul on the non-shooting player lying on the ground, not two bites at the apple for the shooting player.

Just hadn't seen that wrinkle mentioned, and I thought it was a point missed (and therefore not considered) in the subsequent posts on that particular scenario.

I'll go away now… :o