Question Number: 5107

Law 18 - Common Sense

RE: Pro Adult

MCM of , asks...

This is in reference to something that happened in today's Manchester Utd./Juventus Champion's League match...A striker (Ruud van Nistelrooy) is felled by the keeper in the penalty area directly in front of goal. Seeing the ball roll on to another attacking player (Paul Scholes), the center referee judges "advantage" and allows play to continue. Scholes takes a shot on goal which hits the post. The ball is then cleared by the defense...I understand why this is not a penalty kick situation, as the referee (rightly) played advantage. But after the advantage disappeared (and assuming the referee had judged this a tactical foul by the keeper), shouldn't the referee return to book the keeper? Indeed, red card the keeper?

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

The referee may have judged this a common foul because he didn't, at the next stoppage, discipline the keeper. We must trust the referee did what he thought was needed. ..If the referee did see the foul and he awarded advantage then, perhaps, he has left himself open to question. If he just allowed play to continue without applying advantage then he did not give a foul and then nothing happened. ..Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Dawson

I unfortunately have not yet seen the match I hope to on replay. It really depends on the perception and opinion of the referee at that moment in time. My answer maynot truly reflect the incident but feel compelled to answer even before I see the incident. ..If it was a true DOGSO whereby a foul by the keeper meets the proper criteria, playing advantage is very risky as recieving a PK (I assume it was in the penalty area) and having their keeper sent off is a HUGE advantage. ..It is possible there was no DOGSO, or the criteria may not have been totally met, simply a foul that would have resulted in a free kick or PK. I admit unless the ball is rolling into the net I would hesitate to apply advantage on a DOGSO (which maybe why I do not referee in the elite games LOL :o)) ..If Scholes squibbed a CLEAR GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY THAT a 6 year old could score on it really is not the fault of the referee for thinking it was in fact as certain a goal as one could expect. ..If it was not a cynical professional foul then no need to go back and caution showing the yellow card. The foul was simply a foul, not a cynical pull down of the player to stop him, just a bit late or mistimed there would be no need to even display a caution as no USB was present in the tackle. ..The criteria of DOGSO could still have been met and it is a controversial referee who would apply advantage and once missed to go back and red card the keeper for the original attempt to deny the goal. Technically I believe it is not wrong in LAW to do so however, the current thinking if advantage is applied the opportunity is not lost but not yet realized. Once Scholes gobbed the continued opportunity, DOGSO may never have been applied. If there was a cynical nature to the foul then the caution could have been given and the yellow card shown. Once I see it I might be more inclined to offer a more certain opinion...Cheers..PS.OK I sat up and watched the game at 130 AM this morning. Now not totally discounting everthing I already mentioned it does seems odd that no card was issued. I personly felt it was a red card PK DOGSO all the way. Certainly the video review shows it very clear but IF there was advantage shown (I did not see the referee do so as he was not in that camera shot it MUST have been so anything else is not feasable) the cynical nature of the pull down by the keeper is at the least a caution and could be shown the yellow card at the next stoppage for USB. I also felt the advantage was not truly realized as a defender had cut in and the angle to the net was getting severe by the time Scholes shot. My feeling is the referee was looking for a way not to send the keeper off and affect the game as Juventus was very much in the mix. This is one of those arm chair referee decisions where we so wish the referee in the game could explain his thoughts. .Cheers again

Answer provided by Referee Powell

I am not a Manchester United fan I am a Leeds United fan and here is my humble oppinion on the incident.....The keeper firstly fouled Nistlrooy with his leg and then blatently held him with his arm as he tried to get passed him..Paul scholes should have scored but missed..It was the Infamous referee Kim Nilsson (Not sure if that is spelt correctly) of Denmark, I say infamous because he sent David Beckham off in 1998 when England played Argentina..It is a matter of oppinion as to what action he could or should of taken and I think he will not be happy with his performance when he watches the replays, but he only gets one chance to get it right...I personally would have awarded the penalty and dismissed the keeper. Even if we say he applied advantage (which I have not seen him signal as he was out of picture) He should still have dismissed the keeper for denying an obvious goal scoring oppotunity...I felt the performance of all three officials was poor compared to what I have seen at this level. The first Man U goal came when Paul Scholes fouled an oppopnent and the Assistant didn't signal it, perhaps the Assistants were asked to be very low profile but there were a number of occasions that they really could have helped the Referee out...The officials will have worked together before but they didn't seem to be on top of there game on this occassion...Keep Smiling.Steve Powell

Answer provided by Referee Gary Sebalja

I didn't see it, but from what you describe, it may be under the interpretation that because there was advantage and still a GSO that there was not a need to penalise the keeper. How ever the keeper should have at least got a YC for USB at the next stop in play.