Referees can't retract decisions for wasted advantage

Although it never matters to referees who wins the game, I wouldn't mind betting that Danish referee Kit Nielson was relieved when Manchester United managed to win their UEFA Champions' League match against Italian side Juventus last week. Had they not achieved victory he could have replaced Sir Alex Ferguson's flying boot as the next big talking point from Old Trafford. 

As it was at the end of the game everyone had forgotten, or at least forgiven, his failure to give a penalty and send off the Juventus goalkeeper, Chimenti, after he had blatantly brought down United's Dutch striker, Ruud van Nistelrooy. Not only did he bring him down when van Nistelrooy had a clear run at goal, he also grabbed his leg to prevent him getting away. 

If you didn't see the incident on television you will be asking the obvious question: why didn't Kit Nielson take the requisite action? If you were watching, however, you will know that from the tackle, the ball spun loose to Paul Scholes who was in the penalty area with a clear sight of goal, so the referee played the advantage. 

Although Scholes was coming in from the side, it wasn't an acute angle and he should easily have scored. Instead he thundered it against the post and it rebounded into play. As referees we are cautioned against allowing advantage in the penalty area, but I think most would have supported the decision. An open goal without any custodian has to be an easier opportunity to score than a penalty with a goalkeeper standing on the line.

I know that some people were still confused, because the same action in almost any other case would have resulted in the goalkeeper taking an early walk to the dressing room. As he was the last man they have said, surely bringing down an opponent is a sending off offence, no matter what happens subsequently to the ball.

Despite what you may hear television commentators say, nowhere in the Laws of the Game does it talk about 'being the last man'.
What the law actually says is, 'A player is sent off and shown the red card if he denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal, by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick'.

All of that applies in this case except the illegal tackle did not deny a obvious goal-scoring opportunity, it actually set up an even easier, more obvious, opportunity. The fact that this opportunity was then spurned could not be blamed on anyone except Scholes. It is a little like the law about handling the ball to try and prevent a goal being scored. If the player does save the goal then it is a sending-off offence. If, however, despite the defenders efforts the ball still goes
in the net for a goal, then he is not sent off, although he should be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. 

In fact, I am surprised that Kit Nielson, when the ball eventually went out of play, didn't go back and caution Chimenti. Grabbing your
opponent around the legs has got to be unsporting to say the least.

One newspaper complained that the referee refused to award a penalty kick retrospectively after Scholes had missed. Other people have quoted the fairly recent addition to the 'advantage clause' in the laws which says 'a referee penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time'. However this only refers to situations where other factors contrive to nullify the anticipated benefit. We are talking about things like the ball hobbling
badly, or the player stumbling or losing his balance. It is not intended to cover cases where the advantage is wasted by subsequent error by the player or one of his team mates. Not even in Champions League games.


Dick Sawdon Smith

© R Sawdon Smith 2003

Back To Contents