I saw this in an MLS game. A Toronto FC player looked like he was fouled in the Saint Louis City SC penalty area. Even as the Orlando player was fouling him*, he was sending the ball into the back of the net.
If you’re fouled in such a way that you’re due a PK while you’re scoring a goal, do you get a goal and also a PK (so effectively the chance to score two goals)?
*What happened in the game I watched was, Toronto was awarded the goal and the game went on. I don’t know if the ref no determined that he wasn’t fouled, or if he was fouled but you don’t get a foul and a PK, or what.
No you get played advantage. Since a goal is the best possible outcome, that’s what they get, they don’t get a chance at 2 goals. If the shot hadn’t gone in, then they would get a penalty kick.
Though the referee has to indicate they are playing advantage. If instead they decide to blow the whistle for a penalty before the ball crosses the line, the goal will be disallowed (they shouldn’t do but it happens)
They don’t get the penalty kick once advantage is applied. If they miss the shot, that’s on them. You don’t get two bites at the apple.
However, advantage doesn’t need to be applied right away. If the referee sees the penalty, they can wait to determine if the advantage appears and then signal it’s being applied.
Which means if the action that would result in a penalty resulted directly in the shot missing (i.e. the advantage did not materialize and the referee did not signal they were applying advantage), it’s functionally equivalent to the referee having blown the whistle on the penalty immediately.
However, I don’t know if that shot counts as an attempt or not. I don’t think it would because the penalty is being applied, not advantage.
ETA: Advantage can happen anywhere in the field as well. It’s not just for scoring situations, though those are the most common times it’s used.
Referees are supposed to refrain from calling something if the team gains an advantage without calling whatever. But having done so, they cannot generally get the call later. You don’t get the kick and the goal.
It’s interesting to note that this differs from rugby union, where the referee will call advantage and let play continue - but if the play breaks down without any actual advantage being gained, will call the players back for the kick/scrum. You can often see play continue for several phases before being halted and brought back.
This is because rugby isn’t as fluid and fast-moving as soccer, it’s clearer when an advantage has or hasn’t been gained and most fouls won’t prevent a clear scoring opportunity.
(Although interestingly when they do definitely prevent a try, the solution is that: a try is simply given. Unlike soccer where the defending team still has a chance to save a penalty kick, in rugby union the logic is “they were going to score, you fouled them, I’m simply giving them the points”.)
Note that in the situation where you are fouled when about to score, the fouling player can receive a red card and be sent off, for “Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity”.
During the 2010 South Africa FIFA World Cup, the quarter final was Ghana v Uruguay. Ghana would, if they won, become the first African country to reach the Semi Final.
The game was in extra time, and all tied up. Ghana took the ball and brought it into Uruguay’s box. They shoot… And Suarez, one of the star Uruguayan players with a reputation for being a hothead (he had a problem with biting people on the field, too), deliberately blocked the ball with his hand.
Suarez was sent off with a red card (and would miss the semi final, too). But Ghana failed to score on the penalty kick, and Uruguay won in PKs, knocking Ghana out of the Cup.
Uruguay would go on to be defeated by the Netherlands in the semi final.
And Suarez was hail as a hero by his fellow players and fans for saving the team from certain defeat. (I should make if clear he was on the goal line when he blocked the ball with his hand if he had not have committed the foul it wasn’t just “denying an obvious goal scoring opporunity” is was “denying an obvious goal”. It was also in injury time of extra time so Uruguay would have no time to come back and all Uruaguay would miss from Suarez sending off was he would not be eligable as one of the kick takers)
That is another difference between rugby union and football. In rugby if a player commits a foul which would otherwise have probably resulted in a try the referee can award a penalty try. The fouled team get 5 points (same as a normal try) and the conversion attempt is from directly in front of the posts.
It’s at times like the Suarez incident I wonder why football doesn’t have “penalty goals”
Everything you say is correct as far as what happened in that game, and I understand the point you are making, but in Soccer there is no “denying an obvious goal” foul that is separate and more serious than “denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity”. DOGSO fouls can vary in severity and in punishment, so a case like Suarez’s where it was a clear game winning goal denied will be a red card but a less serious case might not be. But it’s the same foul.
Even in American gridiron football (the NFL at least) they can award a score. In a game late last year a team was repeatedly fouling on every play on purpose at the goal line as one team was trying to score, and eventually the officials warned that if it kept up they’d just award an automatic score. The rules allow for that but it’s rarely necessary.
(In this case the defenders finally cut out the shenanigans and sure enough the other team scored.)
I know thereis no “denying an obvious goal” rule, I was just pointing out that had Suarez not handled the ball it wasn’t just a clear chance of a goal it was a definate goal and the point when the foul was made the only chance Uruguay had of winning the game was for Suarez to foul (even if he was spotted by the ref).
As I see it an analogy is making the penalty stealing $1,000,000 a fine of $750,000. You are better off. If you commit the crime where is the deterent?
That was a weird corner case where it was correct for Suarez to foul; as has been pointed out, his team almost certainly would have lost if he hadn’t fouled. But he wasn’t trying to hurt anyone (at that particular moment) or put one over on the ref (obviously he would have been happier had the ref missed the call, but the success of the manuever didn’t depend on him doing so), so I don’t think he did anything wrong. A foul in sports is an action that the rules penalize you for, it isn’t a moral failing.