A&H

Advantage and Consecutive Fouls

jez

New Member
Hi there,

I've been wondering today about advantage and consecutive fouls. In particular, I have been considering the following situation:
A player from team A is fouled by a player from team B. The player from team A stumbles, but maintains possession of the ball. The referee keeps a close eye, anticipating to play advantage for team A. However, once the player from team A regains his balance, he (still possessing the ball) replies to the original foul by committing his own foul on the player from team B.
What do you think the appropriate action is?
  1. Play on, as both fouls were equal in severity and could be regarded as "50-50"
  2. Stop play and award a free kick to team B, as the player from team A committed a foul where no advantage could be found for team B
  3. Stop play and award a free kick to team A, as no advantage could be found from the original foul committed by team B
  4. Stop play and conduct a dropped-ball, as both players committed fouls

I'm under the impression that the correct course of action is option 3. My reasoning being as follows: the referee has already identified that the player from team B has indeed committed a foul on the player from team A. At the point of the second foul, the referee has not yet played advantage, and is still determining whether or not an advantage is possible for team A. If a free-kick is awarded to team B, this is surely not advantageous to team A, and therefore the referee could not possibly play advantage for team A (thus stopping play to administer a free kick to team A for the original foul).

What are your opinions?


Jez
 
The Referee Store
#2. Stop play and award the free kick to the other team.

The player has ended his advantage (voluntarily I might add) by fouling the opponent.

It would be the same as if the player who was initially fouled kicks the ball a mile out of play just because he wants the free kick.
 
Does this :

once the player from team A regains his balance, he (still possessing the ball) replies to the original foul by committing his own foul on the player from team B.

means that he did a foul on purpose, to get back at the player from team B ?
If yes, I would say #2, caution as well

If the foul committed by A is purely in the game, I would come back to the first one.

It would be the same as if the player who was initially fouled kicks the ball a mile out of play just because he wants the free kick.

What's wrong with that ? He earned the FK, just because he COULD take an advantage of it doesn't mean he HAS to. Rugby style
 
  1. Stop play.
  2. Sanction Player B if needed.
  3. If the second foul was reckless, used excessive force, BUPA etc. then sanction Player A appropriately. If it was in retaliation caution for unsporting behavior.
  4. Go back to the first foul for the restart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jez
What's wrong with that ? He earned the FK, just because he COULD take an advantage of it doesn't mean he HAS to. Rugby style
As per instruction we've received here in Canada, it's not up to the player to determine whether or not there's an advantage. It's the ref's call.

As a player, you don't want to take that advantage, then just stumble and lose the ball.

Boot it away, foul the opponent? Not my problem you can't take advantage of the opportunity given to you.

This all, of course, applies if you, as the referee, are actually applying advantage appropriately.
 
I know you're not -- but instruction and interpretation (though I know it isn't, see deliberately kicking the ball to the GK in France vs the USA vs everywhere else) should be consistent across the board.

This is obviously another place where it isn't.
 
#2. Stop play and award the free kick to the other team.

The player has ended his advantage (voluntarily I might add) by fouling the opponent.
In the original post I state that the referee has not yet given advantage, and is still assessing the situation to see if an advantage is applicable. If the referee has given advantage (made the conscious decision to play advantage - regardless of whether or not he has had the time to make the appropriate signals) then I would agree that a free kick could be awarded to team B. However, if you are still looking for an advantage for team A, I don't believe you can penalise them by awarding a free kick to the opposing team (how could this ever be seen as advantageous to team A?).

It would be the same as if the player who was initially fouled kicks the ball a mile out of play just because he wants the free kick.
I don't believe this interpretation of the LOTG is fair. If, in the referees opinion, a player has been fouled while the ball is in play, the referee must provide restitution (where there is no advantage to play on). If a player is fouled and instantaneously kicks the ball out of play, it is unlikely that there is any advantage in restarting the course of play with a throw-in to the opposite team (thus a free kick should be awarded to the player who kicked the ball out of play). If, however, the player kicks the ball out of play after you have played advantage, it is a different matter entirely.
 
@jez ... if you are 'looking' for the advantage, then there clearly is an advantage to be played, why else would you look for one?

for me, I agree with @one

  1. Stop play.
  2. Sanction Player B if needed.
  3. If the second foul was reckless, used excessive force, BUPA etc. then sanction Player A appropriately. If it was in retaliation caution for unsporting behavior.
  4. Go back to the first foul for the restart.

both incidents have been reprimanded, and I would always go back to the original foul - Player B cant complain as he would have had a yellow card for the incident (or at least a foul) anyway ... Player A cant complain as he retaliated, but still gets his FK

good man management may I add also...
 
Back
Top