I understand that the concept that the lines around the field that signal into touch are considered part of the field and the ball is not out untill it fully crosses the line. However, what is the decision on weather or not a clear foul was commited inside the 18 or outside it? Do we make or determination by the position of the ball or the player or where the fouling player stood? What happens if either one of those three is directly on the line marking the 18? I had a blatant foul directly on the border that I called as a PK but in retrospect am unsure if I was justified in doing so. The foul happened with the player who was fouled on top of the line and moving sideways for a better shot on goal. In the end I called it a PK because it "looked" like a PK-but Id love to have a firmer basis than my instinct after playing for years.
The lines are a part of the area which they enclose. So something happening on the line of the PA is in the PA. Where the ball is only matters if it's a handling foul. If any portion of the ball overhangs the PA line, the ball is in the PA, and if handled there, it's a PK. It doesn't matter where the player is standing. Fouls against persons occur where the foul contact is made. If a player standing inside the PA strikes an opponent by sticking his hand outside the PA, the contact is made outside, so it's a DFK - not a PK.
An additional place where this is important is when a fast run toward the goal is occuring and a foul is committed outside the area, but the following tumble of players lands inside the area. Really, a foul occurs where you decide it is a foul, not at the instant you blow the whistle. There is a time lag there where a play could be inside of the penalty area when you blow the whistle.
Those are also the instances where the referee better be right on top of the foul to sell the call being outside the area.
Same goes for being in the area... Yesterday, I was refereeing a D1 amateur league game and there was a fast counter. An attacker was surging into the penalty area when he was clipped by two attackers from either side sending him sprawling. I blow the whistle and before I can even point, the defenders are both pointing outside the area until they turn around and realize I am literally a step and a half behind them. I pointed to the spot and got no argument. You know they would have screamed bloody murder if I'm 30 yards upfield.
At my daughter's game this weekend, a player on her team was arguably fouled just before she dribbled into the penalty area, but she continued dribbling past the defending player. She then was clearly fouled and knocked down by a different defending player when she was about 8 to 10 yards inside the penalty area. The ref then blew the whistle and awarded the free kick outside the area at the sight of the first contact. Assuming the ref agreed that the second contact inside the area was also a foul, shouldn't that be a penalty kick?
That depends on how quickly the play developed. If we're still talking within 2-3 seconds of the original foul to which advantage was applied, the subsequent foul makes the advantage not realized and thus the original foul is punished. If a more substantial amount of time passed from which the referee determines a new play has developed, then the subsequent foul would be punished accordingly. In your case it sounds like the referee decided on the former, hence no penalty kick.
It sounds like the advantage was applied. When she makes it into the penalty area and gets fouled again, she should get the PK for the second foul. You don't play to the fouler's advantage, you call to the foulee's advantage. PK!
I will confess that is how the description makes the scenario sound to me as well, as 8-10 yards is quite a distance (why didn't she shoot? ), but I like to avoid from committing to a right or wrong statement unless I witnessed the scenario myself. I'm interested in hearing jack's opinion on how the rest of the game was handled -- could you tell how experienced the referee was?
I avoid committing to a right or wrong when there might not be a correct answer. From the situation provided: "She then was clearly fouled and knocked down by a different defending player when she was about 8 to 10 yards inside the penalty area", there is a definite correct answer. Whether the referee thought it was a clear foul, in this case, may have been less obvious. He may have decided that she tripped over her own foot or the ball or he may have been screened from the foul, and that it would be a dubious penalty kick. It would be better to go back to the previous foul and not use advantage.
Generally, the ref seemed to do a good job. My guess is that he was reluctant to award a PK, since the score was tied 1 -1, and this was late in the game. (And I agree, the real question is why didn't she shoot??? It seemed like she wanted to dribble into the goal....)
The referee shouldn't be too concerned with these shoot vs. dribble issues. The referee should be concerned with the fair play issues - like making the proper call when someone gets wiped out! There should be no problem protecting a player who wants to dribble into the goal. If she gets charged fairly off the ball or the ball gets tackled away, that's her problem. If she gets tripped or knocked down, it's time for the referee to intervene.
I completely agree with you. My parenthetical about shooting instead of dribbling wasn't intended to be from the ref's perspective. It was solely from the frustrated fan's perspective.
Based on the description, sure, but that's just one account for what actually transpired and may not be entirely accurate (not meaning to take anything away from jack here). You never know when 8-10 yards could very easily be 2-3 yards, or 5 seconds of play is really only 1-2 seconds. Especially when the description is coming from a fan of the team with the grievance