I am in need of finding a specific document to send to my assessor from a match this morning, which will likely determine a pass or fail grade. If anyone can provide a link, I would be grateful. Here's what I'm looking for. Recently, I've been hearing it taught, and seen it in print (although I can't remember where), that Advantage in the penalty area is ONLY applied if a goal is scored, and that failing a goal being scored, we are to come back to the initial foul and give the PK. I know we don't signal, just watch, wait, and see for 2-3 seconds, but in effect, we are supposed to give the attacking team two bites at the apple. Please help me find the documentation from USSF on this.
http://www.ussoccer.com/news/coachesnet/2008/04/position-paper-advantage-and-the-penalty-area.aspx Edit: Here's the video that goes with the position paper
Thanks. The podcast attached to that Week in Review was just what I needed. There was also a different answer from Jim Allen at the time, which agreed with what Brian Hall said in the podcast. I sent both links to my assessor. Now I just have to wait for the results.
Your assessor plans to fail you on an upgrade because you allowed advantage in the PA, a goal was not immediately scored, so you stopped play and awarded the pk? What is he saying you should have done differently?
No, we are not to give the attacking team two bites at the apple. That is the whole point of how we handle fouls by the defending team in the penalty area.
No, I think that you have this slightly incorrect. Advantage is applied when the probability of scoring a goal over scoring a goal via a penalty kick is greater. You don't get two bites of the apple. The decision for allowing advantage should not be made until it is clear that there is a scoring chance and that chance is almost 100%. The advantage most times is awarding the penalty kick because it is most likely a goal. Awarding advantage is usually not a sure thing. One shouldn't use the advantage clause as a crutch. If there a a great chance of scoring you award advantage. If the score does not occur you do not come back and award a PK. The decision alone for advantage and allowing that shot on goal is the advantage chance. That is why you should decide what is the greater likelihood of scoring, PK or shot on goal. Do not give two bites> Your assessor may be looking at the outcome of the match being affected by allowing two bites at the apple. If the goal scored tied or won the match that could be a failure.
And by the way, the position paper does not say what you are trying use as direction for your decision. Anyone else reading it that way would be incorrect also.
The way that Brian explains it in the podcast is that advantage has ONLY materialized if a goal is scored. Any other outcome (including blatant misses from inside the goal area) results in a penalty kick.
No podcast attached to above link. A search on US Soccer does not produce a file for me. I will listen to what Brian says again but I don't believe that there is a clear understanding of what is being stated.
My apologies. http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Referee-Programs/2010/09/2010-Referee-Week-In-Review-23.aspx
After listening to the Podcast once again I still stand by my first post and what I said. Brain does not say that after applying advantage and a goal is not scored that you must award the penalty kick. He says repeatedly that you use a "wait and see" approach and when and only when it is clear that a goal will be scored you can signal advanatge otherwise if no goal, after waiting to see, then a penalty kick is awarded. You are not applying advantage, you are waiting to see whether or not there is a sure goal. A penalty kick is the advantage and almost always, 99%+ of the time, should be given because there is no advantage by allowing g play to continue unless there is 100% a goal is going to be scored. Nothing about "blatant miss" or anything like that. He clearly repeats "wait and see" and the penalty kick is the advantage.
I think the disagreement here might be artificial. If both sides stop using the phrase "two bites of the apple" and adopt the WIR's "If the ball did not go into the goal, the referee should identify that advantage did not materialize and award a penalty kick", I predict concensus. There might remain the mathematical possibility of some disagreement in some highly contrived situation (foul, ball rolls to unmarked player who, with no pressure at all and all the time in the world does something galactically stupid, that one in a million play), but the 99.9999% practical decision is simple. Look at the video in the WIR. The decsision is not good shot vs bad shot. It's goal vs not goal. Very practical, very cut and dried.
JA had another post on Advantage in the PA, while his site was still official, in which he is pretty explicit: "As regards the substance of advantage, inside the penalty area advantage is defined solely in terms of scoring a goal “immediately” . . . If a goal is not scored, regardless of the reason, whistle and call for a penalty kick." [emphasis added.] http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=2562
Fouls in the penalty are are another case where common sense will not lead you astray. You don't need a position paper to figure this one out: Outside the penalty area we would never apply advantage, allow the attacking team to waste the advantage, and then come back and punish the original infraction. Why would we do this in the penalty area? The Laws only give us one definition. What is different in the penalty area are two things: The restart for a foul (PK) provides an extremely good scoring opportunity, superceded only by a goal or an almost-sure goal. The goal is nearby, so the chance of an immediate goal, however small it might be, is immensely higher than anywhere else on the field. Combining these two facts means that we would almost never apply advantage in the penalty area. Visualize situations that are better scoring opportunities than a penalty kick, and you have your answer.
There is only one side using that phrase in the argument. The correct reading of the WIR is needed. The Podcast listening also needs to be correctly listened to. The WIR says that advantage should not be given because the penalty kick is the advantage. Brian says right from the start that advantage should not be applied in the penalty area. He goes on to state that the Laws allow for advantage and then explains how to approach that according to the Laws. But, he also states that there is no advantage applying advantage in the penalty area. So, how much more simple can you get?
I had a situation related happen about a month ago. I'm trail AR and I see the attack develop. Ball is deep in the box and the attacker is fouled and taken off his shot. He still gets his shot off, but it's not a good one and it hits the side post, falls to a defender who shanks the crap out of it. At half-time we discuss and the CR states that he played advantage there. I told him, ok, but the guy that got knocked off his shot did not get a clear opportunity on goal from his position. The second that ball hits the post, I hit the whistle HARD and point to the spot. It was my opinion that he did the right thing in wait and see, but since the ball fell to a teammate off the post, his wait and see was just too long. Once the initial advantage does not materialize (read - goal or on-goal), the PK should be awarded. If I'm in the situation of the attacker, I want a fair shot on goal if my team has given me the opportunity to do so. If I'm fouled and have that opportunity taken away, in the spirit of the game, the PK should be awarded. Thinking about it later, he may have even had a case of DOGSO because IIRC I think all 4 d's were met. It's a difficult situation and call to nail no doubt about it, and 99/100 times YHTBT.
My assessor and some of the higher ups are disagreeing on the interpretation. I am being asked to do one more assessment, but not a 2 for 1 given the circumstances. I can live with that.
Can you put their interpretation into words? Maybe some more details on precisely what happened in your game would help? For the life of me, I just can't see how this can be an issue.
tim, look at a game between spurs and fulham, I think where fulham thrashed spurs. the defender for spurs fouls the striker who gets off a shot, the referee awards the pk, because he adopted the wait and see approach. I think the ref is phil dowd it is about 20 seconds in. does this help? actually wasn't there a thread on here a while back about something like this?
Thanks for that video. It was similar to that scenario but slightly different. The attacker was tripped, but stayed on his feet, took another step or two still off balance and shot wide. I argued that he did not have the same shot he would've had if not fouled, and thus the PK was appropriate. My assessor argued that based on the skill level of players (nowhere near the MLS or EPL level), that the player would not have in fact had a better shot, and that he got his shot off just fine and there was no need for a PK. He disagreed with the "two bites at the apple" concept. However, since the higher ups have noticed there is some obvious lack of clarity in the issue, they said they weren't ready to pass me through yet, but I didn't "fail" either, in a practical sense. It's a weird situation, but will work to my advantage over time.
Forget the special considerations of the PA -- as you describe it (red), I don't think advantage ever accrued in any event. That said, I don't think the green is the right criteria. I think whether advantage should be applied depends on whether the opportunity in continuing action is more advantageous than the kick that would be awarded for the foul. In other words (ignoring for the moment USSF guidance specific to the PA), the opportunity remaining after the foul might not be as good as without the foul, but still be better than the punishment of the foul such that advantage should still be applied, and conversely, the post-foul continuing opportunity could be be better than what was available before the foul, but if the opportunity remains worse than the PK/FK, advantage would not apply (though the concept of trifling might depending on the foul). Which lead me to also being troubled by the assessor's reasoning, as he seems focussed on whether the attacker got off the shot, not whether the shot available after the foul was more advantageous than a PK -- which, IMHO, should be the crieteria even before parsing the USSF guidance on fouls in the PA.
We discussed this extensively back in March; see this thread. My takeaway from that discussion was that, in the PA, yes the attacker does in fact sometimes get two bites.