Question Number: 36009

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/3/2025

RE: Scottish Lowland League 5th Tier Adult

David Fleming of Linwood, Renfrewshire Scotland asks...

Player from team A is clean through around 35 yards from goal, player from team B holds onto his shirt. As player from team A keeps his balance referee plays advantage. As player from team A makes his way into the box for a 1 on 1 with the keeper, another player from team b takes out the Team A player in the box.

Referee decision is to take the play back to the original foul outside the box and send off the offending player resulting in Team A having a free kick outside the box.

My thinking is if he played the advantage originally team A have now lost the advantage by not getting the penalty but a free kick.

What is the correct rule in this case

Thanks in Advance

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi David,

by your description, your assertation is correct. Advantage simply means allowing play to continue if the team offended against would benefit more from doing so than from a FK.

When we have 2 consecutive fouls - whether they are a few seconds apart and advantage was signalled, or whether they are so quick that the ref doesn't have the opportunity to signal advantage, we are essentially playing advantage from the first foul, because allowing play to continue is more beneficial.

It isn't the case that the 2nd foul means the first advantage isn't realised. Awarded the FK at the spot of the second foul, further up the pitch, IS the advantage!

This is also covered in the Questions and Answers to the Laws of the Game.

Take holding, for instance. A defender starts holding an attacker outside the PA, continuing into it. Do we award a FK outside the PA, or a Penalty Kick?

PK of course. The LOTG describes this as a continuous foul, but the basic principle is that we're just continuously applying advantage.

The LOTG also covered situations as you describe - first foul outside the PA, second foul inside. It's a PK.

The only reason it wouldn't be is if the ref didn't actually think the 2nd one was a foul (though typically then, advantage was realised from the first foul, especially given he ran another 20 yards)

Additionally, some areas/countries teach that if you call offside, you shouldn't go back. Some say to signal advantage immediately, even if it's not clear if advantage will materialise, and then go back if it didn't materialise. I'm not sure which approach is typical in Scotland.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi David
Thanks for the question.
The answer hinges on the challenge by the 2nd player from Team B. If that was a foul then the best decision is to award the penalty kick and to take disciplinary sanction on the manner of the 2nd challenge. If it is a challenge for the ball and it is not a DOGSO or reckless then there is no card. The first challenge is now mute unless it was reckless in which case that player could still be cautioned.

The whole basis of the game is goals and a penalty kick award is always a better advantage than a free kick. Put it another way. Say it was 0-0 with a minute to go what decision would be the more advantageous to the fouled against team. A free kick and a red card or a penalty kick. Clearly the penalty kick as there is a much higher chance of a goal by a factor of 80+ %

Now the test can be whether the 2nd challenge was a foul. If it wasn’t a foul then the only option available to the referee is to go back to the foul and award the free kick and the dismissal.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi David,

The only scenario I can see where this would be the correct decision would be if (as my colleagues have alluded to) the referee did not see the second challenge in the penalty area as being a foul.

It is fairly clear from your description that you think the second challenge was a foul however the referee may not have seen it that way.

Because if it was a foul then the advantage would be in getting the penalty kick, not in having a free kick 35 yards from goal and an opponent sent off.