A&H

Southampton v Brighton

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Strange (I thought) decision by Stuart Atwell in this one, I would be grateful for your thoughts on.

Southampton player fouled on edge of PA, but ball runs to team mate, who gets a clear, unblocked, but ultimately well saved shot on goal from 8 - 10 yards.

However, much to Brighton's players surprise, he then brings the game back and gives fk to Southampton.

He did NOT blow whistle for foul until after the shot was saved, so isn't that giving Southampton 2 'goes' and wrong use of advantage?

Thanks
 
The Referee Store
Strange (I thought) decision by Stuart Atwell in this one, I would be grateful for your thoughts on.

Southampton player fouled on edge of PA, but ball runs to team mate, who gets a clear, unblocked, but ultimately well saved shot on goal from 8 - 10 yards.

However, much to Brighton's players surprise, he then brings the game back and gives fk to Southampton.

He did NOT blow whistle for foul until after the shot was saved, so isn't that giving Southampton 2 'goes' and wrong use of advantage?

Thanks

i made the same point when speaking to a fellow ref who was watching, he definitely gave them 2 bites, the advantage was really well played but by having the clear and unchallenged shot from 12 yards out, surely going back for the original fk is incorrect
 
i made the same point when speaking to a fellow ref who was watching, he definitely gave them 2 bites, the advantage was really well played but by having the clear and unchallenged shot from 12 yards out, surely going back for the original fk is incorrect
Glad it wasn't just me then!

Thanks
 
The law simply says that the referee:
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

The saved shot definitely came "within a few seconds" and as far as I'm aware it's up to the referee to decide whether the advantage has ensued or not.

There seems to be a widespread perception that getting a half-way decent shot away is a realisation of the advantage but I don't see anything in the law that says that. It talks about there being a benefit to the non-offending team and I don't see too much benefit from a failed goal attempt.

I actually thought he should have blown before the shot - there were so many defenders back in the way that I didn't think there was much chance of success.

Personally, I had no problem with him penalising the original offence, I just thought it was a little unusual due to the widespread perception I mentioned earlier.
 
Just like if you can bring the ball back once you have signalled advantage, there has always been debate around if the benefit has to be realised at the end of few seconds or once realised within few second advantage is done and dusted. Unfortunately the wording of the law does not clarify this.

There are those who throw everything including the kitchen sink at the offender Because he has commited a foul he deserves everything given against him. This could apply to rugby but not football. For me this, like most other laws are to restore the balance. Just like a SPA is no longer a card if advantage applied.

I haven't seen the OP but it sounds like the restoration was over balanced. Attacker had one opportunity which was unfairly stopped. Referee allowed play to continue because the attackers had a second (even better) opportunity. This restored the balance and advantage applied. The attackers were unable to convert (equally likely for the first opportunity had it not been fouled). The referee decides to give the attackers a third opportunity. This was the over balance.
 
I think my disagreement comes from the fact that the shot was (in the end) unobstructed from 12 yards, whereas the Fk was from just over 18 yards with a wall in the way and gk able to set himself etc. So in my view as the 'advantage' was a better opportunity than the fk it has to have 'accrued'.
 
I agree with you @PinnerPaul - Atwell will look back on this as a mistake. I think he only gave the advantage because he genuinely thought Southampton would score - he just shouldn’t have pulled it back when they missed.

My advice at grassroots would be to take extreme care playing advantage in and around the box. Attackers at that level are far less likely to be able to actually take advantage of the advantage and a penalty/free kick is often the better option.

Obviously this is entirely circumstantial. There’s nothing worse than blowing for a penalty just as a teammate of fouled attacker puts it in the net. That happened to me once back in the early days - thankfully they scored the penalty!
 
I agree with you @PinnerPaul - Atwell will look back on this as a mistake. I think he only gave the advantage because he genuinely thought Southampton would score - he just shouldn’t have pulled it back when they missed.

My advice at grassroots would be to take extreme care playing advantage in and around the box. Attackers at that level are far less likely to be able to actually take advantage of the advantage and a penalty/free kick is often the better option.

Obviously this is entirely circumstantial. There’s nothing worse than blowing for a penalty just as a teammate of fouled attacker puts it in the net. That happened to me once back in the early days - thankfully they scored the penalty!
Agree, there is no implication that it was an 'easy' call - Southampton player actually did well to create the space for the shot, but I agree, once he did do that, then the advantage was 'over'.

He's not my favourite ref, but I have been trying to put aside those 'fan like' prejudices when commenting on the top refs!
 
Agree, there is no implication that it was an 'easy' call - Southampton player actually did well to create the space for the shot, but I agree, once he did do that, then the advantage was 'over'.

He's not my favourite ref, but I have been trying to put aside those 'fan like' prejudices when commenting on the top refs!
The gap between the offence and the whistle was around 1 second/1.5 seconds, well within the "several seconds" allowed . . .
 
The gap between the offence and the whistle was around 1 second/1.5 seconds, well within the "several seconds" allowed . . .
I don't think the question has anything to do with the time, but about what it means for the advantage to "ensue."

To me, by waiting the R is waiting not on the result but the more advantageous opportunity to arise. I.e., is the opportunity presented by allowing play to continue better than the opportunity that would arise from the FK. If the shot available to the player was better than the FK, then there should be no going back regardless of whether he makes the shot or not. By going back, the R is saying that no opportunity better than the FK was available, so no advantage ensued.

That's a judgment call. (I have no opinion on this particular judgment call as I haven't been able to view the clip of the play.)
 
I don't think the question has anything to do with the time, but about what it means for the advantage to "ensue."

To me, by waiting the R is waiting not on the result but the more advantageous opportunity to arise. I.e., is the opportunity presented by allowing play to continue better than the opportunity that would arise from the FK. If the shot available to the player was better than the FK, then there should be no going back regardless of whether he makes the shot or not. By going back, the R is saying that no opportunity better than the FK was available, so no advantage ensued.

That's a judgment call. (I have no opinion on this particular judgment call as I haven't been able to view the clip of the play.)
Law 5: allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds
 
I wonder if he copped an earful and that panicked him. Southampton almost certainly wouldn't want an advantage there, given they have by far the best free kick taker in the country.
 
Law 5: allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds
I have no idea what your post is supposed to mean, since this is exactly what my post addressed. In the play in question, the "few seconds" is not the issue, the issue is what it means for advantage to "ensue."

If ITOOTR, the opportunity for the shot that was taken was better than the opportunity the FK provided, then the advantage ensued and there should be no going back. By going back, the R was of the opinion that opportunity was not better than the FK.
 
I don't think the question has anything to do with the time, but about what it means for the advantage to "ensue."

To me, by waiting the R is waiting not on the result but the more advantageous opportunity to arise. I.e., is the opportunity presented by allowing play to continue better than the opportunity that would arise from the FK. If the shot available to the player was better than the FK, then there should be no going back regardless of whether he makes the shot or not. By going back, the R is saying that no opportunity better than the FK was available, so no advantage ensued.

That's a judgment call. (I have no opinion on this particular judgment call as I haven't been able to view the clip of the play.)
Agreed. The advantage of allowing the shot from open play easily trumped stopping the game for the FK (regardless of the outcome). There was sufficient time to recognize that the shot from open play was more beneficial that the set-piece. I thought this was really clear at the time and amounted to poor refereeing. Southampton got two excellent chances to score fore the price of one
 
And the trick to selling this is to signal advantage as soon as that 'better opportunity' is eventuated. Even if that is in less than one second. That way any attacking poor play or defeing brilliance thereafter is managed fairly.
 
This does show a "feel for the game" type of situation. Based on how the play is described (I also haven't seen the play yet), the advantage was realized. SOU had a shot from 12 yards or so without a wall. That's the advantage. Now since SOU has Ward-Prowse, I would be more inclined to give them the free kick because they have suck a good set piece artist. Other teams may lead me to lean more toward giving advantage.

In any case, the attackers should only get a single bite of the apple unless you feel the shot wasn't a very good shot opportunity.
 
Back
Top