The Ref Stop

DOGSO/Advantage/Mistaken Identity

  • Thread starter Thread starter JH
  • Start date Start date
socal lurker said:
Absolutely not. Bringing back the play means the advantage was never there. The R was correct in Law that if the foul was DOGSO and she came back to it then advantage was not played and the DOGSO remains. (Whether she was correct in judgment to have waited for that to develop at all once the ball went backwards and whether, once she had, she should have concluded it did not ensue are certainly subject to critique.)
Click to expand...
You are correct in saying ref was correct in law for not downgrading the red card due to her choice of restart.

But she was not correct in law (subject to when/if whistle was blown) in the way advantage was played, hence the point about why the red card should have been downgraded. How to play advantage has been debated in numerous threads here so not going there again.

Assuming it was a foul, the outcome should have been a YC to #19 and a corner kick restart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
The Ref Stop
JH said:
It was there, hence why it is a mistake for her to bring it back. Advantage is a mistake, bringing it back is a mistake and red is a mistake.
Click to expand...
As to whether it was a mistake to try advantage - it's damned if you do, damned if you don't here.
We've all blown for the foul in this situation just as the attacker lets go a shot that gets past all the attackers into the corner of the net.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
As to whether it was a mistake to try advantage - it's damned if you do, damned if you don't here.
We've all blown for the foul in this situation just as the attacker lets go a shot that gets past all the attackers into the corner of the net.
Click to expand...
(OK I'll bite). Lets assume for the purpose of this argument there was a foul.

Except that this is a different circumstance to the usual damned if you do, dammed if you don't. Its a red card situation and there is 4+ seconds between the foul and shot on goal, 5+ second until the ball goes out.

The offence is a red card offence. You have to decide almost immediately to play advantage or not. Generally it has to be clear opportunity to score a goal (I know the law doesn't specifically include DOGSO but it does included a second cautionable offence which is the same concept).

The sequence from the foul

1. attacker was fouled
2. defender takes two steps
3. defender takes a controlled touch (second attacker not in frame at this point, at least 10 yards away)
4. second attacker takes a controlled touch from 8 yard outside PA to 2 yards inside PA
5. second attacker takes a shot on target with slight angle and only keeper to beat.
6. keeper deflect the ball out.

The first acceptable and on protocol option would have been to blow between points 2 and 3 or immaturely after point 3 here

1549336846895.png

Ref had enough time to do that. The second attacker would not have taken the first touch let alone the shot on target. Issue the red card and little chance of mistaken identity.

The second acceptable but not recommended option would be if she waited a little, signal advantage immediately after point 4. The attacking team is now in a more beneficial position (controlled shot on target from inside PA with only keeper to beat compered to CFK from outside PA).

You do not bring back to the FK if the attacking team have not converted their advantageous position due to lack of skill more than 4 seconds after the foul. You basically say the same in post 13 (except that its not a goal kick :) ). Both the touches of the second attacker were wholly controlled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
It’s also possible that there was a long delay on the whistle because the AR called it on comms.

For me I don’t think the ref is playing/thinking advantage. But better footage needed. How far away is the ref? Was there are an earlier unheard whistle? What was on the mics?
 
socal lurker said:
Absolutely not. Bringing back the play means the advantage was never there. The R was correct in Law that if the foul was DOGSO and she came back to it then advantage was not played and the DOGSO remains.
Click to expand...
That's not how advantage works. Advantage is when the referee allows play to continue beyond the original foul because they think giving the foul would benefit the offending team. That's when the advantage clause is applied ('played' is a slightly misleading term, I think) - at the point of decision regarding the foul. Whether the referee calls play back afterwards because the anticipated advantage did not ensue or not, by not penalizing the original foul when it occurred, they have applied the advantage clause. I think you're confusing applying the advantage clause, which occurs as soon as the referee decides not to penalise the original offence, and the referee deciding whether the advantage has ensued or not which happens at a later point in time.

Just because the referee eventually comes to the conclusion that the anticipated advantage did not ensue, does not mean "the advantage was not played" - it was applied (or played, if you prefer) as soon as the referee invoked the advantage clause in relation to the original offence.
 
I assumed from the restart that advantage had not been played, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of a whistle on reviewing the calamity
Hence discussions regarding two bites of the cherry appear more that just hypothetical, she can add this misapplication of Law to the mistaken identity, (arguably) incorrect foul recognition and absence of teamwork to her catalogue of woe
 
Big Cat said:
I assumed from the restart that advantage had not been played, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of a whistle on reviewing the calamity
Hence discussions regarding two bites of the cherry appear more that just hypothetical, she can add this misapplication of Law to the mistaken identity, (arguably) incorrect foul recognition and absence of teamwork to her catalogue of woe
Click to expand...


Am going to dam her further, the original long high pass to the half way line is fine but the moment the blue stumbles at the ball, alarm bells ring and the ref needs to sprint because, you are going to have a potential call to make. We dont see her in the screen until my next damming point, she appears with her shopping list in hand....her thinking is all wrong, from simply what we see, she has processed in her mind, oh, a red card is needed.
Problem being, she has totally skipped other important parts of the thought process, like, who was it!
The noting down of the sanction is a fart in a spacesuit unless you know who you are meant to be giving it too!

Nearly every new ref gets taught, see the foul, stop the play, identify the offender, isolate offender, note name/number, issue card, restart correctly

As refs progress they overlook basics in the name of, experience. Foolish
 
She's a FIFA referee and officiates in the Spanish Women's First Division and Men's Third Division.
 
Its a complete and utter mess.

If she has played advantage then its a crazy decision as the blue defender actually comes away with the ball so play should have been brought back for the original foul then.

To send the wrong player off sending a white girl off when it was clear who committed the offence is another horror decision.

The only thing in her defence here is we dont know when the whistle was blown, if it was blown after initial foul then she has never played advantage which gets you out of one hole but not the mistaken identity.
 
JH said:
She's a FIFA referee and officiates in the Spanish Women's First Division and Men's Third Division.
Click to expand...


Nearly every new ref gets taught, see the foul, stop the play, identify the offender, isolate offender, note name/number, issue card, restart correctly

As refs progress they overlook basics in the name of, experience. Foolish


is even more appropriate then ! She overlooked basics, awareness, team work and, if that clip is anything to go by, was lacking in the sprinting stakes too. All to sea pointing all over the place, you could actually see the ducks mad wee legs propelling around, as happens to us all, only mostly on the inside. Calamity all round.
had she calmed (mostly herself!) down, taken stock of what happened, played it back in her head, asked (seeing as it does not appear to be forthcoming) for input from ALL the other match officials (esp given comms in use) , assessed the situation carefully, she would have realised it was the wrong player. One of the 4 by law of averages knows which player committed the (foul?), two of them, might...for all 4 to be unsure is shambolic.
 
Peter Grove said:
That's not how advantage works. Advantage is when the referee allows play to continue beyond the original foul because they think giving the foul would benefit the offending team. That's when the advantage clause is applied ('played' is a slightly misleading term, I think) - at the point of decision regarding the foul. Whether the referee calls play back afterwards because the anticipated advantage did not ensue or not, by not penalizing the original foul when it occurred, they have applied the advantage clause. I think you're confusing applying the advantage clause, which occurs as soon as the referee decides not to penalise the original offence, and the referee deciding whether the advantage has ensued or not which happens at a later point in time.

Just because the referee eventually comes to the conclusion that the anticipated advantage did not ensue, does not mean "the advantage was not played" - it was applied (or played, if you prefer) as soon as the referee invoked the advantage clause in relation to the original offence.
Click to expand...

I'm not confusing anything--I simply disagree with your reasoning. The purpose of going back is that there was not in fact advantage--it is really changing the decision. The "go back" concept was added (in the 90s?) to make it easier for referees to consider advantage. Before that the R had to make a decision right away, and if the advantage turned out to not actually be there, then it was just too bad. (In some ways the "go back" concept institutionalized a practice of slow whistles before deciding on advantage.)

Now let's go to the concept behind reducing the DOGSO send off to a caution. It is that a goal scoring opportunity remained. By going back, the referee is concluding that the advantage that the referee thought was going to be there wasn't. We don't go back because the players fluff the opportunity, we go back because the opportunity we thought was going to be there didn't arise. So the send off remains completely proper.*

_________
*Assuming the debatable facts that there was a foul, that it made sense to see if advantage would ensue, and that it made sense to go back. I find the second and third hard to square together--if what happened wasn't the advantage she thought was going to ensue, what was the advantage she expected on a ball going backwards?
 
The advantage was the shot, like it or not, that was an advantage but not one I would suggest ever playing. Once she has allowed that shot by way of advantage, she cannot come back for a free-kick. Would she have come back if it went in? No.

If it was a careless foul with no technical misconduct (DOGSO), it would've been a good advantage, then play would've restarted with a corner.
 
If she did play advantage, I think we're all agreed it was a poor judgement on many counts, not least because it paved the way to mistaken identity, situational blindness and some deep introspection afterwards
 
You can pull play back after an advantage leads to a shot on goal, that happened in the Newcastle vs Man City game last week after Fernandinho gave a penalty away. The referee (Paul Tierney I think) tried to give it a bit of time, a shot was blocked so he called penalty. The difference there was the shot was quick and it was blocked by a defender, whereas here the attacker had a one on one with the keeper and missed it.

It was only around 4 seconds from the foul to the attacker missing the shot, so you could argue that is short enough to play advantage and pull play back. But then you have to ask did the original attacker have a better chance before being fouled than the second attacker who got the advantage, and in my opinion the answer is no.

All of this, and the debate it has created amongst referees let alone anyone else, just goes to show why you don't play advantage on a DOGSO unless it is very likely a goal will be scored. It really is more hassle than it is worth and will just likely land you in trouble as the referee.
 
RustyRef said:
You can pull play back after an advantage leads to a shot on goal, that happened in the Newcastle vs Man City game last week after Fernandinho gave a penalty away. The referee (Paul Tierney I think) tried to give it a bit of time, a shot was blocked so he called penalty. The difference there was the shot was quick and it was blocked by a defender, whereas here the attacker had a one on one with the keeper and missed it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, what I meant was, the player got into a goal-scoring position and missed. It is then inappropriate to bring it back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top