Advantage

[Referee220378]

Interesting situation in a game this week.

Away side captain approach’s me after I’ve awarded 2 attacking advantages, only for the attackers in both scenarios to blaze both good opportunities over the bar, say’s he doesn’t want the advantage going forward and would prefer the free kicks.

I laughed off his comments but then realised he was deadly serious! To diffuse the situation I engaged with him politely and told him to focus on his game management an I’ll do the same with mine.

Leads me to a few questions (in that I’ve never been asked this before)

Would it be right to change your style of officiating if a side were adamant they didn’t want to ‘play advantage’ and if so, would you have to implement that policy for both sides off the back of one teams request?

For the record, I continued to play advantage throughout but in all honestly probably did change my threshold as a result of the captains comments.

Just playing on my mind a bit and wondered if other referees have had a similar scenario.

 

[santa sangria]

On one hand it’s your job to decide what constitutes advantage - and it’s also your job to adapt to match conditions.

Sometimes you can feel what a team wants, sometimes it’s obvious from a team’s style, the score, match time etc. A team struggling that has finally got a first attack into the opponent’s half might desperately want a borderline advantage. A team defending a 1-0 lead in stoppage time does not want a borderline advantage.

But a captain telling you might also be total revisionism and low level dissent! Of course listen but… you know… player comments on match situations can rarely be taken at face value!

 

[one]

I can't help but think that what the captain actually wanted was a high bar on advantage rather than no advantage under any circumstances. If this happens to me I'd be sure to clarify it and once done I would comply with the request*. To clarify use the example of striker one on one with keeper. Striker rounds the keeper but keeper fouls striker outside PA with both ending up on the ground. The ball is on it's way to goal. A defender can get there and clear it but another attacker is closer and can tap into the empty goal from very clos range. No offsides or DOGSO red in play. 90th minute and 0-0. Do you want advantage or a FK? If he says FK then I'd be sure to find a witness first and put advantage away for his team only.

* Early in my refereeing I learnt that for TI and corners (and other restarts in most cases) if I give one way and both teams say it is the other way, I'd be quick to change my decision. If the benefiting team doesn't want that benefit, not complying makes managing the team(s) much harder.

 

[Archer]

I’ve had captains say pre-game that they’d prefer to lump a free-kick into the box rather than a final-third advantage. Reasonable request imo.

Simply said I’d judge each incident as it happens and be consistent for both teams.

Possession doesn’t always equal advantage.

 

[one]

There is a difference on how we apply advantage in my neck of the woods to what I have seen in England televised games. We generally don't "play advantage" more than two or three times per game. To do so we have to have an "attacking opportunity" present better than a free kick. This doesn't necessarily mean we stop the game whenever there is a foul. If possession is kept and any benefit (or lack there of) is neutral, we simply let the game flow by not calling the foul. Best practice is to communicate that you have seen the foul. My go to is "saw that", "you have the ball" or "keep playing".

What I have observed in English football is that the advantage signal is used in neutral situations.

 

[Archer]

What I have observed in English football is that the advantage signal is used in neutral situations.

Usually a cop out from a Ref who was never going to give that FK but the ball breaks nicely so it’s a tickbox for the observer