Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country


About xPetrCechx

  • Rank
    Transfer News Reporter
  • Birthday 08/02/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Israel
  • Fan Since 2007
  • First Match Chelsea-West Bromwich 20/08/11
  1. Chelsea - Hull

  2. Chelsea - Hull

    Mind the gap.
  3. Patrick Bamford

  4. The English Football Thread

    but the reality is different... This is a good question and can be a very tricky situation for referees. 'No advantage in the penalty area' is often taught to referees, and for the most part this is a fair rule of thumb, as a penalty is one of the best chances at goal you could get. However, it can only ever be a rule of thumb. For instance, what if the attacking player manages to control the ball, and only has one player - or no players - to beat? In essence if the player has what we'd otherwise consider an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity', and has the ball under control and is in no way being negatively affected by the foul, then perhaps that's one of the few situations when we could apply advantage in the penalty area. The reason it's a tricky area is because the referee should be aware that there's a chance the player will somehow sneak a shot into the net just as the referee blows his whistle. That's why sometimes the referee also has the option of holding off on his decision to apply advantage when it doesn't look like the player will have an advantage (say, they're stumbling or have been forced into a crowded situation as the direct result of the foul), but the referee can wait to see if they fluke a good shot and then - in certain situations - still go back to the penalty. You only want to do that if the shot the player took was clearly and negatively affected by the foul - you don't want to take away their chance to pull off a fluke, but if they have possession and opportunity then you also don't want to give them 'two bites at the cherry'. It's a difficult balancing act for a referee - and deciding whether the advantage will finally apply and permit the shot as that advantage is also a difficult balancing act. In the situation given here, I'd be interested in whether the player has completely regained their feet, is balanced and able to get off a clear attack at goal in determining if the shot is the advantage. If the player is still stumbling and tries to score anyway, I'd permit that but probably go back to the foul if the shot doesn't go in - anything else would be punishing the player for doing the right thing by attempting to continue play rather than milk the foul. Also, consider the number of defenders - how many defenders are between the attacker and the goal (also consider any defenders rushing across who are only a few steps away from that player and the goal)? Also, the proximity of those players - when he regains his feet, is the keeper right in his face and attacking the ball? If so, there wouldn't be much 'opportunity' there. Long story short, you can apply advantage in the penalty area but it's rare, and it would need to be a very, very clear advantage which offers as good a chance at goal as a penalty kick. I once had a situation where a player was running towards goal, with the ball at his feet and only the keeper to beat except for the defender just behind him. For about the last 15 metres the defender was clearly pulling his shirt, but the attacker kept fighting towards the goal. This continued into the penalty area, when the attacker took a shot which went wide. As the attacker was taking the shot, it was clear that he was being pulled off balance by the foul and this affected the shot - however, I knew that I didn't want to blow the whistle beforehand just in case he somehow got a good shot off as I did so. So I wanted to allow him the shot, then decide if it was affected by the foul. As it was clearly affected by the foul, I still went back to the penalty and sent off the defender. However, if 2 metres into the penalty area that attacker had broken free from the defender and had the ball at his feet with only the keeper to beat, I most likely would've applied advantage - despite it being in the penalty area - and determined that the shot was the culmination of the advantage, even if it missed. I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding. We teach referees not to give the advantage signal on offenses inside the penalty area - not because they can't or won't give an advantage, but because in such situations they need to be totally focused on what is happening in the next few seconds. If the player who is fouled can score, then we held the whistle for a good reason. If he doesn't, we can still award the penalty kick. A foul inside the penalty area is an excellent opportunity for the referee to wait a second more before blowing the whistle. The referee can still award the penalty kick if a goal is not scored, but avoids the infamy of disallowing a goal that scores milliseconds after the whistle.
  5. The English Football Thread

    its stupid to give a penalty if the player already scored.... the refs don't to that, right?...
  6. The English Football Thread

    that's what the ref gave to him... i didn't say its correct...
  7. The English Football Thread

    right, but it's still some type of advantage...
  8. The English Football Thread

    and if sterilng scored?
  9. The English Football Thread

    he got the advantage....
  10. The English Football Thread

    and leroy scored his goal with his hand.... so...
  11. The English Football Thread

    Sterling continued his run and tried to score... he could stop... like hazard did sometimes, when someone fouls on him.... he got the advantage....