A&H

Leicester v West Ham

Eddie

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
Referee has played advantage a couple of times the last few minutes.

First one: ball was given away 2 seconds or so into the advantage.

Second advantage: Vardy was dispossessed almost straight after advantage was given.

Am I wrong in saying both should’ve been brought back as the advantage didn’t ensue?

Am not going to lie, this is an area where I get confused between when to pull it back and when to let play carry on following an advantage that doesn’t play out.
 
The Referee Store
Can’t tell for their descriptions and I haven’t seen them. The real question is whether the ball was lost because the advantage wasn’t there or because the player made a poor choice/play. In the first, it sounds like it may have been a poor play—too bad, going back on advantage isn’t meant to cover for player mistakes. The second sounds more likely that there wasn’t actually an advantage—but would have to see it to know.
 
Can’t tell for their descriptions and I haven’t seen them. The real question is whether the ball was lost because the advantage wasn’t there or because the player made a poor choice/play. In the first, it sounds like it may have been a poor play—too bad, going back on advantage isn’t meant to cover for player mistakes. The second sounds more likely that there wasn’t actually an advantage—but would have to see it to know.

That’s what I was wondering. If advantage is played and the first thing the player does is spray it out of play, it’s just tough luck?
 
I find that English referees use advantage far too often. A decent assessor once told me if you average more than two or three advantages per game then you are probably not applying it correctly.

Retaining clear possession does not equate to advantage. Ignoring trifling fouls or fouls with no impact and allowing play to flow does not require an advantage signal.
 
That’s what I was wondering. If advantage is played and the first thing the player does is spray it out of play, it’s just tough luck?

Depends. Does he spray it out of play because it was actually hard to get to or did he just make a crappy play? I the latter, tough luck. In the former, it raises the question of whether there actually was an advantage that was better than the FK that would have been awarded.
 
I find that English referees use advantage far too often. A decent assessor once told me if you average more than two or three advantages per game then you are probably not applying it correctly.

Retaining clear possession does not equate to advantage. Ignoring trifling fouls or fouls with no impact and allowing play to flow does not require an advantage signal.

I don't buy that at all. You can't ignore fouls and you can't let players think you are. An advantage tells them you've seen the foul - no matter how 'trifling' - but are happy to let play go on.
 
Trifling and advantage are different concepts. Soccer has long recognized that some plays, while technically fouls, are too small to pay attention to—they are trifling and should be ignored. That’s different from playing advantage—the R signaling advantage means (at least should mean) “yes, I saw the foul and I would have called it except that you are better off by me not stopping play.”
 
The thing is with the skill level in the EPL (also other elite leagues) any possession can very quickly turn into a good advantage.
The players/managers/fans expect the referee to keep the game playing when possession is retained as it is better for them so it's played as many times as is expected.
I'd say the advice is probably good for your level but not applicable to the elite game where retaining possession and keeping pressure on your oppo IS often advantageous to that team.
 
@JamesL i think the key word in your post is “often.” Whether mere possession is an advantage depends on a whole host of factors—is the FK in the scoring zone, where on the field, where are teammates, where are the defenders, direction of play, and even style of the teams. I think truly recognizing advantage is one of the most important parts of the “art” of being a referee—recognizing when letting play continue is truly better for the offended team. I do agree with you that the higher the level the more likely the teams will want advantage from “mere” possession.
 
The thing is with the skill level in the EPL (also other elite leagues) any possession can very quickly turn into a good advantage.
The players/managers/fans expect the referee to keep the game playing when possession is retained as it is better for them so it's played as many times as is expected.
I'd say the advice is probably good for your level but not applicable to the elite game where retaining possession and keeping pressure on your oppo IS often advantageous to that team.
But the same also applies to any free kick on or around half way forward. Any free kick can turn into a goal.
 
But the same also applies to any free kick on or around half way forward. Any free kick can turn into a goal.
But breaks up the game and allows the opposition to get all their men back.
Its fair to say at our level there is a massive difference between possession as advantage and true advantage and the elite level where keeping the game moving and flowing is what the world wants.
It happened in a game yesterday, think it was Arsenal, ref blew for a Nothing foul in the Arsenal half, Arsenal wanted to keep playing to the point that stopping the ball to play it was a disadvantage as they played the exact same ball as they would have the game continued. The disadvantage being that the couple of seconds lost allowed the opposition a chance to get back and reset.
In my game, allowing the offended against team to keep playing across the back is dangerous, the game is slow and the skill level is much lower meaning they probably would benefit from being able to take a minute over the free kick. At the highest levels, this is the opposite and I actually feel arsenal were disadvantaged by the referee choosing not to play advantage.
Advantage is an art, and a skill to learn when refereeing. The trick is to truly understand the level you are refereeing and how your advantages can benefit the game, be that creating goal scoring opportunities to not interrupting the game frequently, unnecessarily and disadvantaging the offended against team.
 
But breaks up the game and allows the opposition to get all their men back.
Its fair to say at our level there is a massive difference between possession as advantage and true advantage and the elite level where keeping the game moving and flowing is what the world wants.
It happened in a game yesterday, think it was Arsenal, ref blew for a Nothing foul in the Arsenal half, Arsenal wanted to keep playing to the point that stopping the ball to play it was a disadvantage as they played the exact same ball as they would have the game continued. The disadvantage being that the couple of seconds lost allowed the opposition a chance to get back and reset.
In my game, allowing the offended against team to keep playing across the back is dangerous, the game is slow and the skill level is much lower meaning they probably would benefit from being able to take a minute over the free kick. At the highest levels, this is the opposite and I actually feel arsenal were disadvantaged by the referee choosing not to play advantage.
Advantage is an art, and a skill to learn when refereeing. The trick is to truly understand the level you are refereeing and how your advantages can benefit the game, be that creating goal scoring opportunities to not interrupting the game frequently, unnecessarily and disadvantaging the offended against team.
Agree with everything you said but uou missed the point. You said it 'can' turn into and advantage, and I said so does a free kick.

My original point is, in your scenario you don't play advantage, you simply allow the game to continue (or sometimes referred as letting the game flow). I am not asking for the game to stop and go e a free kick. I have it in my games too. Sometimes you just ignore a little foul and for the bigger ones you just acknowledge you have seen it but keep playing. But you don't signal advantage because there is no real immidiate attacking opportunity. You don't stop play because the whole game benefits from it.
 
@JamesL i think the key word in your post is “often.” Whether mere possession is an advantage depends on a whole host of factors—is the FK in the scoring zone, where on the field, where are teammates, where are the defenders, direction of play, and even style of the teams. I think truly recognizing advantage is one of the most important parts of the “art” of being a referee—recognizing when letting play continue is truly better for the offended team. I do agree with you that the higher the level the more likely the teams will want advantage from “mere” possession.
I'd agree with the latter point but possession doesn't always equal advantage. In successive EPL games Man City players have been shielding the ball at corner or touch line and have been blatantly kicked on the leg with no advantage and no FK.
 
I'd agree with the latter point but possession doesn't always equal advantage. In successive EPL games Man City players have been shielding the ball at corner or touch line and have been blatantly kicked on the leg with no advantage and no FK.
That's because they are Man City 🤣😅
 
Agree with everything you said but uou missed the point. You said it 'can' turn into and advantage, and I said so does a free kick.

My original point is, in your scenario you don't play advantage, you simply allow the game to continue (or sometimes referred as letting the game flow). I am not asking for the game to stop and go e a free kick. I have it in my games too. Sometimes you just ignore a little foul and for the bigger ones you just acknowledge you have seen it but keep playing. But you don't signal advantage because there is no real immidiate attacking opportunity. You don't stop play because the whole game benefits from it.
Nope, if I am allowing play to continue after a foul, trifling or not, I'll give the advantage signal, that makes it clear to everybody I am acknowledging foul play, and allowing the game to continue..
It's all about what you determine as a 'benefit' to the non offending team. A benefit doesn't have to be an attack, or a goal. Scoring opportunity.. It can be allowing them to continue probing, or conti ue dominating possession,. Or simply. Retaining possession can be considered as a 'benefit'. Again, level of skill determines how beneficial each scenario is which is my point.. Comparing yours and my game with the EPL is comparing apples and oranges.
Its all relative..
You said more than 2 or 3 advantages is too much and that EPL play it too much. But it's all relative, compare the number of passes, tackles, attacks in an EPL game vs your own and it will be significabtly higher, as the game is faster, therefore, naturally the number of opportunities for advantage also increases ie your ahrd and fast 2 or 3 is a much higher number at that level.
 
Nope, if I am allowing play to continue after a foul, trifling or not, I'll give the advantage signal, that makes it clear to everybody I am acknowledging foul play, and allowing the game to continue..
It's all about what you determine as a 'benefit' to the non offending team. A benefit doesn't have to be an attack, or a goal. Scoring opportunity.. It can be allowing them to continue probing, or conti ue dominating possession,. Or simply. Retaining possession can be considered as a 'benefit'. Again, level of skill determines how beneficial each scenario is which is my point.. Comparing yours and my game with the EPL is comparing apples and oranges.
Its all relative..
You said more than 2 or 3 advantages is too much and that EPL play it too much. But it's all relative, compare the number of passes, tackles, attacks in an EPL game vs your own and it will be significabtly higher, as the game is faster, therefore, naturally the number of opportunities for advantage also increases ie your ahrd and fast 2 or 3 is a much higher number at that level.
Fair enough. For me I'd go with the advise in the lotg (which can be interpreted differently or I). Simple retaining possession doesn't cut it for me.

Screenshot_20201005-211835.jpg
 
Fair enough. For me I'd go with the advise in the lotg (which can be interpreted differently or I). Simple retaining possession doesn't cut it for me.

View attachment 4602
Key words for me is can play advantage whenever a foul occurs and also the word consider.
These considerations for me increase the "should" play advantage but don't necessarily remove the ability to play advantage when these things do immediately apparent.
 
I had a weird advantage today which led to a goal. Goalkeeper clears but gets clattered, applied wait and see when a midfielder gets one hell of a first touch and spins his marker. Two passes later, it's a goal. It's all relative to level as stated before but that felt good even if it was clearly in the red zone of giving no advantage at all.
 
Back
Top