The Ref Stop

Advantage

  • Thread starter Thread starter JH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@GraemeS i dont think at any point over this whole debate has he said, "Dont ever play advantage". The point he is trying to make is be careful and selective and take into account ability of the players when doing so. Just like we take other things into account when deciding to allow an advantage, temperature of the game etc etc.
 
The Ref Stop
Cheshire Ref said:
@GraemeS i dont think at any point over this whole debate has he said, "Dont ever play advantage". The point he is trying to make is be careful and selective and take into account ability of the players when doing so. Just like we take other things into account when deciding to allow an advantage, temperature of the game etc etc.
Click to expand...
And respectfully, I think you've fallen for him changing his argument as the thread's developed.

EDIT: In fact, to quote his first post on this thread:
Padfoot said:
Simple answer.....don't play advantage unless they are about to slot the ball into an open net.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Try what you as ref consider to be advantage 40 yards out, signal it, shout it, it looks good, but for some reason, it does not pay off (remember it wont always actually end up in the net, through no fault of your own), then no marks are lost.
Try one...blah blah blah..and its the only goal of the game....then, (clearly bearing in mind the other aspects of the game), then, you have the possibility of a higher mark based on your management of the game
By all mean, do 4/5 and they are at best dubious then you are risking mark deduction.
You cannot base the marking down of dissent on this..the referee could make a wrong PK call and lead to dissent, its the call itself you would mark down for, not the dissent which follows. The players control their dissent, you control your match decisions.
Then again, prev posts by Obi suggest, he has little respect for the players on the park, it might just pass him by that majority of grass roots play for enjoyment, and are well aware of their limited ability.
Also, by posting as he does re what he considers acceptable, you run the huge risk of a referee changing his natural game to suit the observer in question. What you end up seeing then is a referee officiating as he thinks the assessor would like to see, and this is pure pants, what any observer actually does want to see is that referee, his personality, his control, his confidence and his ability.
 
GraemeS said:
And respectfully, I think you've fallen for him changing his argument as the thread's developed.

EDIT: In fact, to quote his first post on this thread:
Click to expand...

Respectfully, i have done no such thing. I said very early on in this thread where i stood and that i do some what amazingly agree with Padfoot. I may not agree with the way he puts it or his clear lack of respect for players but i do agree that advantage should be applied with caution.
 
Padfoot said:
Simple answer.....don't play advantage unless they are about to slot the ball into an open net.

Referees get themselves into far too much trouble by trying to play advantages.....the vast majority of which are not actually advantageous at all.

You also have to consider the ability of the players.....they may think they play like Messi but the reality is often very different.

You'll cause yourself less issues by playing virtually no advantage than by trying to play ones that are dubious.
Click to expand...

GraemeS said:
And respectfully, I think you've fallen for him changing his argument as the thread's developed.

EDIT: In fact, to quote his first post on this thread:
Click to expand...

Have quoted my original post, which you chose only to post the very first line, presumably because that supported your argument better than quoting the whole post? At no point have I ever said don't play any advantage at all.....even using my first line....it still doesn't say never to play advantage!

Ciley Myrus said:
Try what you as ref consider to be advantage 40 yards out, signal it, shout it, it looks good, but for some reason, it does not pay off (remember it wont always actually end up in the net, through no fault of your own), then no marks are lost.
Try one...blah blah blah..and its the only goal of the game....then, (clearly bearing in mind the other aspects of the game), then, you have the possibility of a higher mark based on your management of the game
By all mean, do 4/5 and they are at best dubious then you are risking mark deduction.
You cannot base the marking down of dissent on this..the referee could make a wrong PK call and lead to dissent, its the call itself you would mark down for, not the dissent which follows. The players control their dissent, you control your match decisions.
Then again, prev posts by Obi suggest, he has little respect for the players on the park, it might just pass him by that majority of grass roots play for enjoyment, and are well aware of their limited ability.
Also, by posting as he does re what he considers acceptable, you run the huge risk of a referee changing his natural game to suit the observer in question. What you end up seeing then is a referee officiating as he thinks the assessor would like to see, and this is pure pants, what any observer actually does want to see is that referee, his personality, his control, his confidence and his ability.
Click to expand...

If the referee had chosen instead to not to try to play a pants advantage, he wouldn't have been in a situation where he had to deal with the pull it back or not scenario.....thus he has exposed himself to an unnecessary risk.

And as for your ridiculous notion that our actions as referees don't affect dissent......get real. Absolutely it does. If you make a wrong decision as a referee, and it leads to a dissent caution...the root cause is your incorrect decision. No, it isn't right for the player to commit dissent, but like it or not, you are a contributory factor in that event.

Cheshire Ref said:
Respectfully, i have done no such thing. I said very early on in this thread where i stood and that i do some what amazingly agree with Padfoot. I may not agree with the way he puts it or his clear lack of respect for players but i do agree that advantage should be applied with caution.
Click to expand...

It's not a lack of respect...it's just brutal honesty.
 
i actually feel this guy is on the fish and me, and other posters, keep biting

A risk! Playing a game on a maybe surface is a risk. Awarding a so so throw or corner to the attacking team is a risk. Choosing to try to manage mouthy number 5 when a caution might be apt is a risk. The only way to referee a game and not take a risk is for the game already to have been played, so that way you already have the outcome to every decision

Its about judgement, appreciation, respect and overall a feeling for the game

To point blabk shout down this control tool before even weighing if up is the opposite of all the above
 
Ciley Myrus said:
i actually feel this guy is on the fish and me, and other posters, keep biting

A risk! Playing a game on a maybe surface is a risk. Awarding a so so throw or corner to the attacking team is a risk. Choosing to try to manage mouthy number 5 when a caution might be apt is a risk. The only way to referee a game and not take a risk is for the game already to have been played, so that way you already have the outcome to every decision

Its about judgement, appreciation, respect and overall a feeling for the game

To point blabk shout down this control tool before even weighing if up is the opposite of all the above
Click to expand...

Playing on a questionable surface.....unnecessary risk.

Awarding a corner/throw in to the attacking team in the attacking third of the pitch that you don't really have a clue over......unnecessary risk.

Managing a mouthy player instead of cautioning......acceptable risk, depending on context.

Note the key word.......UNNECESSARY. Certain parts of refereeing necessitate an element of risk, the key message here is that you should minimising the risk to your match control wherever possible and that includes not trying to play dubious advantages just for the sake of it.
 
one said:
for me the notion of "don't apply advantage because you are not good at it and there are few in grassroots anyway" is the same as "don't blow for fouls in U12 and below if you are a new referee because your fouls recognition is not good and there aren't too many fouls in U12s anyway".

No prizes for guessing I think they are both wrong.
Click to expand...
Padfoot said:
They are also totally different......one looks at the ability of the player.....your u12 example looks at the ability of the referee....something which is not under discussion here.
Click to expand...
Padfoot said:
and for inexperienced colleagues (especially those seeking promotion) it is better to play "safe" unless they are literally about to slot it into an empty net, until they have the experience to make the best use of those few genuine advantages that occur.
Click to expand...
Looks to me your reasoning has a lot to do with the ability of the referee and it is under discussion here.
 
Yes, one should take into account the ability of players when deciding whether to play advantage or not. For example, if a player is fouled and his teammate (who has thus far proven his inability to dribble or pass with any accuracy or speed) picks up the ball, then no advantage has been gained. Consider the tactics which could be used by the opponents in this case: "when the technically inept player is nearby, we will foul whoever has the ball and let the poor player take it. There will be no advantage and so we can be assured that we will regain possession without incurring a foul." That hardly sounds like an "advantage" for the team who've been fouled.

For me, when it comes to advantage, there are three considerations that usually come into play: the relative quality of the players, the position of the incident on the FOP, and the numbers of attackers and defenders. All of those will be considered before making a decision on advantage.
 
I disagree. I'm a fairly terrible player who has never actually played a huge amount of football. At best, I can play myself into form and be a functional member of a team. But I've still swung a boot at a ball and it's ended up in the top corner a handful of times over the years. And I can promise you that if one of those goals had been disallowed because the referee had seen me play for 5 minutes and decided I was too **** to score a goal from 30 yards, I would probably have ended my limited playing career with one red card rather than zero.

Point is, I don't think generalisations about teams or even individual players really help. The best advantage I've ever played as a referee ended up in a 30 yard worldie - and the team who scored that wonder goal ended up losing that match 9-2.

I think Padfoot gives players far too little credit. As a general rule, they understand the advantage law. They generally appreciate you trying to play it and understand if either play play gets pulled back, or the advantage occurs but doesn't then really lead to much. I've certainly been moaned at quite a few times for being too hasty with my whistle and missing advantages. To suggest that players are too stupid for their opinions on advantage to matter requires a far more dictatorial referee than I'm willing to be.
 
I find the lack of respect for the players that pay our match fees quite disturbing! As a player myself in a grassroots team, I find it disturbing that one day I could have a referee with such a crap attitude officiate a game in which I'm playing in.
When reffing, I play advantage where I can. If it doesn't accrue, I bring it back. It is that simple.
If it's lost by the players, they soon realise it was their fault.

Shocking, but completely unsurprising.
 
Last edited:
Padfoot said:
Clearly you have little experience of observing referees, at least under the current system, so forgive me if i treat your opinion on my observing ability with the disdain it deserves.



!
Click to expand...
My my, you're a self-important, arrogant, condescending ass aren't you? Even moreso than usual, that is.
Genuinely can't be bothered with your superiority complex anymore. I've never read so much self-important, patronising BS in one thread from a single user before. You've managed to outdo even yourself on this one. Better print and frame this thread and hang it on your wall so you can admire it with pride every time you start getting anxious that you've gone half a day without trying to belittle somebody else. .

And here's a terrifying thought for you - 'experience' doesn't even come close to equating to 'competence'. I like how you 'presume' you've assessed more referees than myself - or that you think your 'assessor' role grants you automatic victory in this discussion. Those 2 facts already say a heck of a lot about you. Not going to engage in the pissing contest over 'who has assessed more' because it's just not relevant nor does it prove anything.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DB
New profile pic for you.......

BryoWQD.jpg
 
Ryan Owens said:
Yes, one should take into account the ability of players when deciding whether to play advantage or not. For example, if a player is fouled and his teammate (who has thus far proven his inability to dribble or pass with any accuracy or speed) picks up the ball, then no advantage has been gained. Consider the tactics which could be used by the opponents in this case: "when the technically inept player is nearby, we will foul whoever has the ball and let the poor player take it. There will be no advantage and so we can be assured that we will regain possession without incurring a foul." That hardly sounds like an "advantage" for the team who've been fouled.

For me, when it comes to advantage, there are three considerations that usually come into play: the relative quality of the players, the position of the incident on the FOP, and the numbers of attackers and defenders. All of those will be considered before making a decision on advantage.
Click to expand...


Position on field yes, but ability of who it falls to? NO!! If it falls nicely to Phil Jones and not Rashford, its still an advantage to Manchester United..... you cant say, oh look, that would be a good advantage if it fell to Ronaldo instead of Ramos ! Its a team game!
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Position on field yes, but ability of who it falls to? NO!! If it falls nicely to Phil Jones and not Rashford, its still an advantage to Manchester United..... you cant say, oh look, that would be a good advantage if it fell to Ronaldo instead of Ramos ! Its a team game!
Click to expand...

Phil Jones is of sufficient quality to play a ball.
 
I'm getting very bored with this one. For what it's worth, Padfoot is largely correct and I recognise all he says in the way I used to ref.....you can disagree, you can continue to try and 'manufacture' an advantage, but in the end he is just right, each to their own!
 
Padfoot said:
Simple answer.....don't play advantage unless they are about to slot the ball into an open net.

Referees get themselves into far too much trouble by trying to play advantages.....the vast majority of which are not actually advantageous at all.

You also have to consider the ability of the players.....they may think they play like Messi but the reality is often very different.

You'll cause yourself less issues by playing virtually no advantage than by trying to play ones that are dubious.
Click to expand...

Mintyref said:
I'm getting very bored with this one. For what it's worth, Padfoot is largely correct and I recognise all he says in the way I used to ref.....you can disagree, you can continue to try and 'manufacture' an advantage, but in the end he is just right, each to their own!
Click to expand...

Worth taking this right back to where the 'boring discussion' started, @Padfoot 's first contribution. There is as you say Minty, a good deal of truth in it .. but unfortunately the truth is ridiculously overwhelmed by unnecessary exaggeration.
1) "Referees get themselves into trouble by trying to play too many advantages" .. often this is true
2) "You should consider the ability of the players" .. absolutely
3) "You'll cause less issues by playing virtually no advantages than dubious ones ... debatable but a valid perspective. Though obviously ignores the 'happy medium' approach
4) "Don't play advantage unless they are about to slot the ball in an open net" .. complete and utter tosh and nonsense. A sure fire route to annoying players (of all standards) and coming across as a whistle happy control freak.

Over use of advantage and especially trying to 'manufacture' them is definitely dangerous. But selective, choiceful spotting of TRUE advantages in the correct parts of the field is a great way to increase the enjoyment of players and spectators AND (from my experience) please Observers as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top