RefSix

More advantageous than free kick

The Referee

Well-Known Member
#1
Keeper gathers the ball in his hands but goes down hurt after a late challenge by an attacker. It would be more advantageous for the goalkeeper if, instead of a free kick, play was just stopped for the injury and play continued with a dropped ball where the keeper can just pick the ball up again and continue play from his hands.

Can a referee do this?


Possible downsides:
If the attacker needed to be cautioned, this wouldn't be possible unless advantage is played and then play is stopped for the injury?
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#2
Good one.

But you're not supposed to stop play for an injury whilst the ball's still in play, unless in your opinion it's a serious one or a head injury so technically I'd advise against it.
 
#3
Keeper gathers the ball in his hands but goes down hurt after a late challenge by an attacker. It would be more advantageous for the goalkeeper if, instead of a free kick, play was just stopped for the injury and play continued with a dropped ball where the keeper can just pick the ball up again and continue play from his hands.

Can a referee do this?


Possible downsides:
If the attacker needed to be cautioned, this wouldn't be possible unless advantage is played and then play is stopped for the injury?
Of course the referee can, as he is the only one with a whistle and decides when an injury is serious. But I wouldn't recommend it. And absolutely not if you are going to caution. Call the foul. Talk to the attacker about taking more care with GKs or caution while the GK is being checked out. Give the FK. That is going to be better for game control than fudging the laws to give the ball back to the GK.
 

Kes

I'll Decide ...
#5
'Head injury' myth alert!:p
Law 5 may not specifically mention "head injury" but the basic assumption is that a clash of heads or a blow to the head, irrespective of how innocuous it may appear to a referee (and assuming like most, he doesn't have a medical degree) can/should be treated as potentially serious.
 

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
#6
Law 5 may not specifically mention "head injury" but the basic assumption is that a clash of heads or a blow to the head, irrespective of how innocuous it may appear to a referee (and assuming like most, he doesn't have a medical degree) can/should be treated as potentially serious.
I agree, but the myth persists that a referee HAS to stop play for any kind of head 'injury'.

Players have used that to their advantage, in the EFL especially, to such an extent that Bristol City have emailed all clubs saying they are NEVER going to put the ball out of play for ANY injury, leaving it to the ref to stop play.

The distinction being if you think/suspect that a player is feigning a head injury you do not HAVE to stop play.

Agree 100% that is a big, difficult call, but its an important distinction I think.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#7
Keeper gathers the ball in his hands but goes down hurt after a late challenge by an attacker. It would be more advantageous for the goalkeeper if, instead of a free kick, play was just stopped for the injury and play continued with a dropped ball where the keeper can just pick the ball up again and continue play from his hands.

Can a referee do this?


Possible downsides:
If the attacker needed to be cautioned, this wouldn't be possible unless advantage is played and then play is stopped for the injury?
How much benefit are they getting out of this? And balance that up against what they expect from you to do. Your credibility as a referee and game control. I would give the free kick 10 out of 10 times.

Here is some advice from the book itself which on the whole i think suggests you should not play advantage in this situation. It is not just about about if it is more advantageous than a free kick.

1568130258103.png
 
#8
I don't think you can just go straight from not giving a free kick, to giving a dropped ball under the guise of playing the advantage. Normally, in a position like that if you think it's a foul, you should give it. As others have said, it's not clear there'd really be much of an advantage to be gained anyway

But I think it's also somewhat a question of sequence and timing. Let's say for instance, that you see what you think might have been a foul on the keeper but decide to let it go because the keeper has the ball and looks like they're going to clear the ball upfield (which is kind of like playing the advantage, in a way). However, after taking a few steps and getting close to the penalty mark, the keeper starts feeling the after-effects of the challenge and goes down, still holding onto the ball. You pretty much have to stop play then, let the keeper get the required attention and then you would indeed restart with a dropped ball to the keeper.

In fact, I'm wondering if the question was prompted by almost this exact situation in the Man City vs Man Utd WSL game last week. Utd keeper Mary Earps delayed picking up the ball as a City player approached (Georgia Stanway, IIRC). The City player made a move towards the ball and it looked like she may have caught the keeper's ankle. The referee didn't react one way or the other and I suspect she didn't see the incident as a foul or at least, not one worth calling. When the keeper went down injured a few seconds later, the referee stopped play and called for the trainer. Play restarted afterwards with a dropped ball to the keeper.
 
Top