A&H

Advantage - change of tack?

Yampy

Yampy

RefChat Addict
Are we seeing a change of tack in the EPL with regards to advantage?
IMO, there seemed to be a greater willingness by the referee to let play go on after a foul and see if an advantage developed for the team in possession. If not, they pulled play back for the foul even if the period of time was a couple of seconds or more (a lot can happen in 3 seconds in football).
I noticed it a number of times this weekend in the live games and while the sample size is small, it felt like a collective effort by officials.
 
The Referee Store
It is what has been promoted at L3 & L4 for a number of years. Seeing it was very successful, EPL & FL trying it to make better football.

See - Assessors do improve football.
 
I tend to agree with you, at the higher levels of the game we are seeing more use of the advantage option. No bad thing in my opinion.
 
If one of the incidents was in City v Liverpool, you'd think the "advantaged" team would actually have to have scored to rule out getting a second bite. Liverpool player was fouled on the right wing about halfway in the half. Advantage played, ending with Liverpool player in possession just outside penalty area. Not under pressure, his pass from that position was poor, intercepted by a defender, and Jon Moss then gave the FK. Possession by itself is not necessarily an advantage, but I'm not sure players should be given a good advantage, get in a good position even if not an OGSO and just decide to give the ball away to get the FK after all.
 
bloovee said:
If one of the incidents was in City v Liverpool, you'd think the "advantaged" team would actually have to have scored to rule out getting a second bite. Liverpool player was fouled on the right wing about halfway in the half. Advantage played, ending with Liverpool player in possession just outside penalty area. Not under pressure, his pass from that position was poor, intercepted by a defender, and Jon Moss then gave the FK. Possession by itself is not necessarily an advantage, but I'm not sure players should be given a good advantage, get in a good position even if not an OGSO and just decide to give the ball away to get the FK after all.
Click to expand...


Blue tinted glasses......?
 
You'd have to see it to judge. What next, advantage played, shot hits the bar and goes behind and the team gets a FK as well? As there is no real definition of what constitutes advantage, it's a recipe for inconsistency. Couple that with when players "stay on their feet" when fouled rather than fall for a penalty, but don't score and it's inbuilt controversy. It now seems legitimate for players who are fouled and advantage is called to then just stop if they'd rather have the FK. I'd offer a rule of thumb - if you play advantage, and the move comes to nothing, ask: would the fouled player (or team) have complained if I'd stopped play for the FK rather than play advantage? If yes, there's less case to bring it back for the FK if the advantage does not ensue.

The blue tint is relevant though. City's stats for fouls committed against the team is rather low. It's partly because City don't want or expect a FK every time Silva gets kicked from behind. The stats might be different if refs could press a button to record they'd played advantage even if they don't physically signal it.
 
bloovee said:
If one of the incidents was in City v Liverpool, you'd think the "advantaged" team would actually have to have scored to rule out getting a second bite. Liverpool player was fouled on the right wing about halfway in the half. Advantage played, ending with Liverpool player in possession just outside penalty area. Not under pressure, his pass from that position was poor, intercepted by a defender, and Jon Moss then gave the FK. Possession by itself is not necessarily an advantage, but I'm not sure players should be given a good advantage, get in a good position even if not an OGSO and just decide to give the ball away to get the FK after all.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that. Can you find it in the video please? Full match and highlights are available here:

http://lasthighlight.com/video-manchester-city-vs-liverpool-highlights-full-match/

Post the minute and we can have a debate. :)
 
Thanks for finding that. Looks like it's about 3.5-4 seconds to me. Quite a long one.

Still, I can't say I find fault in it. I wouldn't want to make a habit of going beyond 2 or 3 seconds, but as a one off it doesn't seem too bad.

Interesting that only one City player seems to not like it too.
 
I definitely find fault with that. Real example of 'two bites at the cherry'. The very real advantage to Liverpool only disappears after the misplaced pass by the Liverpool player so for me, play on and don't bring it back. Probably didn't help Jon Moss in this instance that his assistant had immediately flagged for the foul
 
Perhaps there's something else to consider. Who would feel most hard done-by? City concede a goal from the FK, they're miffed - Liverpool concede from a breakaway after the misplaced pass and they're more miffed because they've lost to a move after their player was fouled. Still, that would be due to the misplaced pass (which let's face it, didn't deserve a second bite chance) rather than the referee's playing advantage.

I assure you that the rest of City's players didn't like it - but did you expect them to surround the referee? We're not Chelsea or United.
 
Last edited:
Where does this 2 bites of the cherry thing come from?

It's not a long supported phrase or theme. Advantage needs a good tidying up to remove some of the ambiguity it currently has.
 
SM said:
Where does this 2 bites of the cherry thing come from?

It's not a long supported phrase or theme. Advantage needs a good tidying up to remove some of the ambiguity it currently has.
Click to expand...

Long supported in literature or in the laws? Origin's a bit obscure but one definition online is "something along the lines of having a second go at something, perhaps with an underlying imputation that such a second chance is not really deserved, or that it is a bonus". In the context of LOTG, the law says the referee "allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time" and that "the decision to penalise the original offence must be taken within a few seconds", and also estimate "the chances of an immediate, promising attack".

I've no problem with the four seconds taken to decide, but in that four seconds, an immediate, promising attack had got the ball from the touchline to the edge of the penalty area, and the player in possession, under no great pressure, did not pass to one of three teammates but straight to an opponent. He'd had the advantage and had had the promising attack, which he then of his own volition messed up. *

If you want to amend the law, then I guess you'd be looking for a similar distinction to that in offside. A defender can only play an attacker onside by a deliberate pass, not from a deflection. So if the advantaged player deliberately makes a bad pass that ends the advantage, that's the end of the advantage - and no second bite with a FK.

I'd have to say there's no need for that as this is the first "second bite" decision that has outraged me since Graham Poll played advantage at the Hawthorns and the advantaged West Brom player had a clear shot at goal from the edge of the PA, missed, and still got a FK (and I think West Brom scored from the FK....) There have been one or two where I've thought City were lucky to get a second bite, but not outrageously so.

I can't be bothered rooting the video for it (yet) but in the same match there was (in these blue eyes) a foul on a City player who almost immediately lost possession under challenge and there was no FK.

[ * I did originally write coc ked up but the auto edit made it look more vulgar by turning it to ****ed up! What happens to the phrase **** a snook? Or City's claim to be the leading contender if there were cups for ****-ups? ]

Russell Jones said:
.... Probably didn't help Jon Moss in this instance that his assistant had immediately flagged for the foul
Click to expand...

I'm afraid so, that was very poor by the AR on several counts. Before flagging, the AR "must determine that the referee would not have applied the advantage if he had seen the offence" and (inter alia)
"• give his flag a slight wave back and forth (avoiding any excessive or aggressive movement)"

The flagging was excessive enough for a SFP offence!
 
Last edited:
Interesting. What you seem to be saying is that this two bites of the cherry idea refers to LOTG from years gone by and despite not being mentioned in the current LOTG or its supporting interpretations, it still lumes over it like the ghost of Christmas past? :D

It's a little bit; have an advantage whether you want it or not. But screw it up and tough.

Its broken imho and needs tweaking to make it more genuinely advantageous to the offended against party regardless of whether they them shank the pass into touch. Rugby again seems to be leading potential influence.
 
Two very long "few seconds""from Roger East today in Southampton's favour but nowt similar for the two City wanted. Then he pulled one back for a Southampton FK just as their potential advantage turned into a real one!

And Southampton's goal was from the first incident, so if the EPL is instructing longer to see if the advantage ensues then I think you can expect more controversial decisions. See what gems the Match of the Day pundits manage.
 
I had an interesting one today.
Last minute of the game, reds leading the game 1-0 and under the cosh. Ball breaks in midfield to one of their players who is fouled by blue, the ball breaks to a red player in a promising position, classic advantage, but I blow for the free-kick.
"Can't you play the advantage, ref??"
"Wouldn't you rather run the clock down?" I reply.
"Oh yeah, good shout".
Don't know if that contravenes LOTG, but the red team appreciated it as they held on.
 
That is an interesting one. It's not one of the "circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play"!
 
Wow. Just seen the one from the City-Southampton game. Timed it at just over 6 seconds between foul and whistle.

51:12 in the video.
 
Last edited:
I'm not even sure there was a foul - Davis ran into Kolarov - but if it was a foul I've no problem with the delay as an off the ball foul reduced the options from the advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top