Inspired by a comment on the commentary of last night's Watford v Chelsea game, but with the facts changed around a bit...
Referees are encouraged, when they see a foul, to wait a couple of seconds to see if the team with the fouled player gains any advantage.
A winger is fouled on the sidelines, ten yards into in the opposing half as he breaks on the counter attack. It's a yellow card offence in your view. The ball drops to a player of the same team in the centre circle. Before you decide to blow your whistle, the following goes through your head:
1. The winger is back on his feet and is not offside.
2. The player with the ball now has no pace
3. The striker sprinting forward (now on the half way line) hasn't scored in 8 games and can't hit a barn door
4. The team with possession has the highest set piece conversion rate in the league
5. The team defending has the worst record defending set pieces in the league
Firstly, what's your call: free kick or play on?
Secondly, which of these factors above are relevant to your decision?
Thirdly, should referees be encouraged to lean more towards a free kick for teams like West Brom and Watford and play advantage to teams that score more from open play? Should advantage be subjective (team and situation-specific) or objective (i.e., whether a team
in general would have an advantage)?
Click to see full-size image. |
