The English Football Thread

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

Great week-end so far, hats off to Swansea for putting the scum in their place. Could not have happened to a nicer bunch, Scousers the most disgusting animal living on this planet. 

[Rmpr 8,977]

22 minutes ago, xPetrCechx said:

he got the advantage....

 

 

Dude there is no advantage on pen...

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

Just now, Chelsea? said:

Then you don't call a penalty? 

right, but it's still some type of advantage...

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

2 minutes ago, Rmpr said:

Dude there is no advantage on pen...

that's what the ref gave to him... i didn't say its correct...

[Rmpr 8,977]

People, please learn the rules before starting a discussion. THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR PENALTIES. Even if the play ends up in a goal, the correct thing is to give the penalty.

I dont care what anyone thinks, that is the rule.

[DDA 9,570]

Just now, Rmpr said:

People, please learn the rules before starting a discussion. THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR PENALTIES. Even if the play ends up in a goal, the correct thing is to give the penalty.

I dont care what anyone thinks, that is the rule.

RMPR HAS SPOKEN!!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1 hour ago, Rmpr said:

Winning tomorrow will be HUGE as it would leave us with 55 and 10 wins away from reaching our goal. Plus the fact it would put immense pressure on our rivals. Im confident!

A win tomorrow would also mean that we would remain top regardless of our results in the following two matches against Liverpool and Arsenal. 

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

13 minutes ago, Rmpr said:

People, please learn the rules before starting a discussion. THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR PENALTIES. Even if the play ends up in a goal, the correct thing is to give the penalty.

I dont care what anyone thinks, that is the rule.

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

[John1611 77]

1 hour ago, positivefootball said:

hahahahaahha jesus

 

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Jesus !

 

1 hour ago, BoyBlue96 said:

JESUS FUCK hahhahaha

As a Christian I'm absolutely appalled. Christians believe Jesus' name is sacred and Holy, that He is our Saviour. This must not be allowed on public forums.

[Chelsea4 1,521]

I feel sad for Guardiola the media won't give him a break but they won't say anything about Man Utd scoring 8 offside goals this season. City was better than Tottenham and they should have won.

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

25 minutes ago, Rmpr said:

People, please learn the rules before starting a discussion. THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR PENALTIES. Even if the play ends up in a goal, the correct thing is to give the penalty.

I dont care what anyone thinks, that is the rule.

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.

[Blue-in-me-Veins 4,067]

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner.

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

10 minutes ago, John1611 said:

 

 

As a Christian I'm absolutely appalled. Christians believe Jesus' name is sacred and Holy, that He is our Saviour. This must not be allowed on public forums.

You're having a laugh, its pronounced 'Haysyou'

Hes not the Messiah

 

[positivefootball 195]

Buy Llorente NOW!

[positivefootball 195]

Thanks Swansea

[Barbara 15,149]

2 hours ago, John1611 said:

 

 

As a Christian I'm absolutely appalled. Christians believe Jesus' name is sacred and Holy, that He is our Saviour. This must not be allowed on public forums.

I believe in Jesus, I don't believe his name is sacred. It's just a name... There have been many Jesuses before him and many more after. Also, Jesus can take a few jokes, based on how he acted in some occasions in the Bible? He can definitely take a joke it isn't ill intended otherwise what else am I supposed to do with someone who says he's supposed to be my friend and older brother? relax a bit, mate. Cheers

[guddy6969 188]

1 hour ago, Barbara said:

I believe in Jesus, I don't believe his name is sacred. It's just a name... There have been many Jesuses before him and many more after. Also, Jesus can take a few jokes, based on how he acted in some occasions in the Bible? He can definitely take a joke it isn't ill intended otherwise what else am I supposed to do with someone who says he's supposed to be my friend and older brother? relax a bit, mate. Cheers

There is no need to get cross.. 

[Rmpr 8,977]

4 hours ago, CHOULO19 said:

A win tomorrow would also mean that we would remain top regardless of our results in the following two matches against Liverpool and Arsenal. 

Fuuuuuuuu... Its true, didnt realize it before.

This could be great, takes the weight off our shoulders for thoese 2 derbys. Playing light is always good!