Question Number: 28311

Law 5 - The Referee 4/7/2014

RE: Pro Professional

Elly of Melbourne, VIC Australia asks...

Saw an interesting situation a few years ago, and I'd like your opinion on it.

This happened at an international friendly between Australia and Scotland. The Aussies were on the attack when a Scottish defender blocked a shot with his arm ON the goal line (not merely in the penalty area, but literally on the goal line). Presumably a clear DOGSO offence.

Now the referee had two choices here: He could blow the whistle, award a penalty, and send the offending Scottish defender off. Or he could 'play advantage', and see if the Aussies got the ball in on the rebound. He chose the second option, and sure enough, after a bit of kerfuffle, the Aussies got the ball into the net. No send-off for the Scotsman. (I presume that had the Aussies NOT succeeded in getting the ball in, he would have indeed blown for a penalty and send-off).

My question is, which of the two options is correct? Do the attacking team get the greater 'advantage' from the ref continuing play, and seeing if they score? Or would the correct option be to blow the whistle, so as to give the attacking team the 'advantage' of having their opponents reduced to 10 men?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Elly
A goal is always seen as a greater advantage so the referee was correct to 'wait and see' before deciding if a goal or goal scoring opportunity was denied.
You might recall the infamous handling in the game between Ghana and Uruguay in the 2010 World Cup. Now a goal was not scored here but if it could have been the referee should allow advantage for it to awarded. The resultant penalty was missed and Uruguay went on to win the game on penalties.
In the 2006 Champions League Final between Arsenal and Barcelona the referee Terge Hauge sent off the Arsenal Goalkeeper in the 18th minute for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Just as the referee was blowing the whistle for the foul, Barcelona scored which had to be ruled out as play had stopped. Now it was not a penalty restart but Arsenal had to play with 10 players for 72 minutes. Arsenal subsequently scored in the 37th minute. It took Barcelona until the 76th minute to equalise and they subsequently went on to win.
The point is that there is no certainty of a goal being scored on a penalty and referees should always allow advantage for the goal to be awarded. When that happens nothing has been denied. Some believe that the 'better' decision is to always award the penalty and dismiss the player. I personally do not agree with that.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

A goal is the best use by the victim's team of an award of advantage. They get to score and the misconduct is still punished with a yellow card.

But, it takes courage to revoke the advantage and call the penalty kick when the second opportunity goes awry in this situation. The laws intend that the victim get two bites at the apple.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 30337