How long to wait to give a red card?

Firstly, I'd give the attacker a YC for kicking the ball away after you've blown the whistle.

But you didn't stop play. You said you allowed play to continue. From experience, 99.9 times out of 100 you should be blowing the whistle as soon as it happens.

As it was once explained to me, for the advantage to be played in this scenario, the ball literally has to land at an attackers feet who puts it into the net in a split second. If the defenders have time to scramble into the penalty area, then it's too long.

 

If the goalie stopped playing, then wouldn't there be pretty much an open net aside from a few defenders? Maybe I'm seeing this wrong in my head, but I would allow advantage. I guess it also depends on how far out the shot is taken.

 

The "advantage=goal" applies to inside the PA, right? the original offense is outside the PA, so advantage is continued possession/attack.

So, advantage correctly given and indicated, and the attacking team retains possession and continues attacking. So, why did you stop play? No matter what happens, if the attack continues after 3-5 seconds, advantage is realized. If play continues and a goal is scored, the original offense is cautioned. If play continues and a goal not scored, the original offense is a send off.

send off can be done at the next stoppage.

 

I disagree strongly with all of this. First off, you want to caution the attacker for kicking the ball after the whistle? Emotions are going to be very high in this situation as the attacking team has to give up a goal for a free kick. Cautioning the kid may well lead to having to send him off when he explodes at you, and that would be a send off that the referee essentially created by adding insult to injury. If you do this in an amateur game, the players may chase you off the field.

Secondly, in situations for DOGSO, it doesn't hurt to hold your whistle for a second or two just to look for a potential advantage. The ideal outcome is a goal, which will negate the need for a red card. Your control of the match will not suffer if you wait a moment to see what happens. If a goal isn't scored, you can always bring it back and send off the goalkeeper. Obviously you need to be very careful when applying advantage in this scenario, but in general, it's a good policy to wait a couple moments before blowing the whistle for a DOGSO foul, just in case!

 

Obviously, a joke.

That's what happened in this scenario and look what happened! The CR waited, thought that the time of advantage had been long enough, but just happened to blow it a second too early. Nobody would have complained if it was whistled straight away.

 

The proper mechanic would be to either immediately blow the whistle if no advantage can be gained or apply advantage and see the advantage through completely. It seems that the OP whistled the end of the advantage prematurely.

There is, of course, another angle you can look at here: is it more advantageous to the attacking team to stop play, send off the keeper, and award the free kick, or is it more advantageous to let play continue and give the attacker a chance at a shot. Since you still have the ability to call the play back, I say call advantage and see what happens. But you could also argue the former, given the timing and circumstances of the match.

EDIT: it would seem that the attacking team wanted the advantage since they keep going instead of stoping as the keeper did.

 

I think it might be valuable to ask yourself whether what really happened here is that you bailed on advantage instead of taking the chance the attacker would waste it by missing the shot, because in the moment you weren't sure you could still send off the keeper if he did miss it, when the restart would be a goal kick. That is probably what would have happened to me.

 

Generally speaking, any moment where an attacking team is given a free kick in place of a goal is one which that referee should analyze. From the description of the OP, it seems there was an advantage, but the whistle was blown before it could be realized. Sometimes we underestimate the skill of the players, and sometimes the players get lucky; it appears both of those things may have happened here. Applying advantage in a DOGSO situation requires a great deal of experience and patience, especially since many people around you will be panicking. CKRef - only you know how stressed you felt in this situation, but now that you have experienced it, use the experience to try to allow the advantage a little longer. It feels risky, but the risk has great rewards .

 

Back when I was less experienced and not as capable in the application of advantage, I had a similar situation happen to me.

I was AR1 on a U18B match. The center went down with cramps (GA heat/humidity), so I took the whistle. After a few minutes, I fely like a substitute teacher with the players seeing how far they could push me. There had already been a send off for VC to the home team. Player threw an elbow at the opponent's head .

Late in the match, the away team was outside home's PA. An attacker was in a good position to take a shot, when a defender wrapped him up with a bear hug. I didn't think the attacker would be able to shoot, so I was going to call the foul immediately. Just as I got the whistle to my lips and began to blow, the attacker, still wrapped up by the attacker, sent the ball toward goal and it scored . But it was too late. I had already blown the whistle. Due to my own inexperience, I was forced to send off that defender for denying a goal by foul (albeit via my whistle). Now both coaches are going ballistic. I learned a valuable lesson that day. Unless there is no chance at all of there being a goal, wait.

 

The problem is that this kind of situation can bite you regardless. No matter how long and patiently you wait and hold the whistle, the attacking team can always some way, somehow score just after you've blown. It's not just a matter of a slow whistle. You can do everything right, and still get it "wrong". Sounds like that's what happened to CKRef.

I had a similar one once. Attacker on breakaway, keeper comes outside the box and nails attacker. 20 yards out and off to the side of the area. Ball aimlessly caroms away, or so I thought. Blow for foul, sprint to the spot, get ready to produce red card... and the "aimless" ball slowly rolls across the penalty area into the corner of the net. Took 3-4 seconds to get there--at which point there probably would have been a fight between the striker and keeper had the whistle not gone. I was damned either way.

It's part of the unpredictability of the game. We see players manage things all the time when we thought they had no chance. It sucks to take away a great goal, but it happens. A slower whistle can help minimize, but not prevent, such occurrences.

 

As noted, if the advantage does not accrue, go back to the foul and give the red. As set out in the ATR:

But what about when advantage is wasted? Take the OP, and imagine with no defenders in front of him, attacker has an uncontested shot at the goal, and just lifts the ball over the cross bar -- advantage wasted, we're not going back for the foul. But is it still a red card, or does the application of advantage really say that the goal scoring opportunity was not in fact denied by the foul since the attacker ended up with an uncontested foul? I need to think this one through, as off the top of my head I can argue it either way. Opinions?

 

I think it's ok to give DOGSO-H outside the area (but for the handling the ball is in the net) and advantage leading to no goal. But not DOGSO-F. I think that has to become a yellow. You are acknowledging that the OGSO stilll existed after the foul.

 

The foul did not deny an OGSO. Indeed, the OGSO still existed after the foul. No red. Maybe yellow, depending on game situation. Goal kick.

 

There is no way you can go back and award the foul just because the kicker screwed up the shot. Once he takes that shot, that is the advantage being played. Whatever happens after that is irrelevant.

 

If the attacker gets a fair chance to score with the advantage, then no Red card. i.e. Keeper comes out and blocks a shot outside the area, that would have gone in; ball deflects back into the path of the shooter who is now clear on goal, he shoots and misses. His shot is balanced and controlled, he just shanks it. Result can't be a RC; I suppose YC would be merited, eventhough that would confuse most of the players. What card would you show if the shot goes in? Show the same card if he misses a fair shot.

 

That's true outside the PA, but not inside. We went over that at length not too long ago. Where's that thread? Ah ... here.

 

If I can send off the defender in either case, advantage does not mean that an OGSO still exists, it means that a scoring opportunity more valuable than a free kick exists.

 

So let's imagine an attacker with an OGSO is fouled, leaving him with a goal scoring chance which is still superior to a DFK from the spot of the foul. Yes, I think you could justify sending off the defender for DOGSO even though you played advantage. However, I don't think you can sell the call.

The other problem you're going to have is you now have a player sitting on a red card still playing in the game. Imagine if he makes a clearance to start a counterattack that scores, or worse scores himself, before you send him off.

For me, the offense has until I get the whistle to my mouth to shoot, otherwise there's no advantage on a sending-off offense.

 

I think that we are over thinking advantage a little.

(outside the PA) We are not charged with making a complex calculation as to what is better for the team, to consider wind direction, the attacker's favored shooting foot, sun position and the percentage of goals scored from various distances from the goal.

If the offense is fouled and yet is able to maintain possession and continued attack within 3-5 seconds, the advantage is realized and we are playing. We must have another new reason to stop play. Any sanction, red or yellow, from the foul must be addressed at the next stoppage, but that can be at the end of the period.

For fouls in the PA, the only realized advantage is ball in the net.

If the advantage is realized and wasted, you can't go back to the original foul, but you can (and must) still sanction the player if the original foul warranted it. Since it can occasionally be a while until the next stoppage, I try to give myself a memory tag by saying out loud to the player: "number 10- I'm coming back for you!". That way, everyone knows (including myself) that a sanction is coming and to whom.

I'm a simple guy, and I try to keep it simple. Helps me stay mentally organized when my brain is O2 deprived.

Have I got this wrong?

 

I think you might have it a bit oversimplified. The advantage clause says the referee "allows play to continue when the team against which an offense has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalizes the original offense if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time." (Or, as the ATR puts it "Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.") I think that does mean that the referee must detrmie that the live-play advantage available is better than the free kick -- otherwise it is not an advantage for the offended team to keep playing. So I think the quality of the available attack the creates an advantage differs if the FK would be at 40 yards out vs. inside the penalty arc. At the same time, it's a rough formula based on reading the game and instinct, not a mathamatical application of excessive levels of nuance.

 

I fully agree on the difficulty of selling a send-off here if the play continues. Remember the Champions League final with Arsenal-Barcelona, where Lehman was sent off for dogso-f at the top of the PA, and the ball fell to a Barca attacker (Giuly) who put it in the net?

What was the consensus from referees on that call? Did most agree that the official in this instance was too hasty, and that a goal and caution would have been a better choice than a red and a DFK?

But let's suppose he had been paying attention to the post-foul movement of players and ball, and Giuly had hit the post. In that case, Giuly's miss would be the same as skying a PK. It was a chance, and that chance was blown. Clearly the color of Lehman's post-shot card can not be a result of the shooter's momentary luck, can it? Red card and goal kick?!?

For years, I had thought the official had botched that call. After reading this thread, he got it perfect. The shooter got lucky threading a shot through four defenders. The keeper's team is about to go to KFTM with their backup. The call in the OP was the right one, and the keeper's team should have defended better.

The other point in the quote above about the player who will be sent off next occurrence is an interesting one, and raises a different concern about Advantage outside the PA. Suppose a player already on a caution commits a reckless challenge at the top of the attacking third, but the ball squirts to a striker with an unimpeded path to goal, so advantage is given.

Some advocate announcing "we''re coming back to that" or some other indication that the miscreant will be cautioned next stoppage. Should the goal attempt result in a save, that player about to receive a red could be involved in a goal, or worse, could use his temporary stay as a chance to claim one more victim.

Would the best advice to be that Advantage involving a second caution foul should be treated the same as in the PA, and that the sendoff takes precedence over the ensuing ogso, or is it worth risking having a player on a red still on the field?

Or should verbal notices to players about cautions that will be shown next stoppage simply be left out when it comes to 2nd cautions?

 

The infraction is not denying a goal. It is denying the opportunity to score a goal. In your example, there was another opportunity after advantage was applied, so the advantage was realized. A caution to the keeper would be appropriate.

 

Again, this is a good thread. When it comes to applying advantage, does a deliberate, controlled touch from the attacker determine whether advantage materialized? In the OP the CR whistled the foul when the attacker chose to move away from goal, nullifying the advantage, ITOOTR.

I had a situation last weekend where a very skilled player was fouled at the touchline even with the top of the PA. He stumbled, but kept his feet and got off a pretty good cross that his teammates simply had not anticipated, so the attack was wasted. Had he fallen or stopped going for the ball, I'd have whistled, but his body language showed me he wanted the chance to get the cross off.

At least, that's what I thought. After the cross, as he jogged by me he joked: "You have a lot of faith in me!" Looks like he wanted the call. At the time, I remember thinking, "You have too little in me." Had fallen or simply stopped, I'd have given the foul. His choice not to push to the end line would have indicated an unwillingness to pursue an advantage. And he'd be entitled to the free kick. Same thing, though, if his next touch were to settle the ball, with the defender between him and the goal. He'd still have control, but with a defender right on top of him. His controlled, deliberate touch would have negated advantage, and summoned a whistle.