PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
But the advantage DID ensue?
Southampton v Brighton
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
That is the question! There are two schools of thought (at least) on this one. Did the non-offending team benefit from the advantage being applied? In my opinion, the answer in this instance is "No" so a free kick is warranted, although I understand the other side of the coin also.
one
RefChat Addict
You would have look past how the law is worded into what was intended. I'm sure you are aware IFAB has never been good at wording what they intend.
The intent is always fairness, just behind safety.
just because the striker missed the presentable chance is not a good enough reason to bring it back and aware the FK imo
R can't realistically take into account who will take the FK! (especially within a second or two)
Advantage not-realized should've been the sum total of this scenario (I know you ain't seen it BTW)
I'm not that surprised that a Tutor has come to this conclusion. That's where football is at the moment. In essence you would teach something most of us vehemently disagree with. Regardless of who is right/wrong, that's concerning
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
We teach application of law, including an acceptance that within the law as written there is room for individual opinions. That is what we have in this example, as shown by the responses from colleagues in favour and those against. Several have agreed with your view, several have disagreed, which is how it should be.
Some Refs doing one thing and others doing the complete opposite, is not the we ought to be tutored. For me, there's way too much of this 'interpretation business' in football. Even my 13 year old daughter couldn't understand why Southampton had a FK given they'd just missed a very good opportunity to score. Honestly, that was even before I stuck my ore in. Really, be hard pressed to find a better example of how not to apply 'advantage' IMO
That said, ordinarily, I rate Atwell... and this is a 'mistake' I reckon I may have in my locker
Last edited:
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
When you were taught the laws, a phrase which you learned and you and I use to this day sums up the current teaching of non-mandatory issues in the game to prospective referees... "in the opinion of the referee"
You have used "IMO" in your post when stating your case, and rightly so, aware that not everyone will agree.
They ought to change it to, 'in the opinion of the vast majority of referees'
These are difficult scenarios to referee. If the player scores from an unobstructed shot on goal from 12 yards, you (as referee) get no credit. If your awareness is poor and you stop the game for a FK, chances are you've denied the player a clear advantage (and typically they score) and you'll need some rapid-action paracetamol. Or finally, you get the first bit right, the player does not take the 'advantage' your awareness has given them and you pull it back for a bonus bite at the cherry, which is poor refereeing and unfair on the offending team. I rest my case your Honour
Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
What would you accept as ‘benefitting?’ A goal?
It is not that uncommon at senior levels where the captain tells the referee they don't want advantage played if the free kick is in a place where they can get a shot at goal. If I was in a team with Ward-Prowse I'd be doing exactly that as there's a much bigger chance of the free kick being scored than a goal arising from the advantage.
Of course, whether the referee chooses to honour such requests is down to him.
one
RefChat Addict
I think the opposite view is to take the whole of 'few seconds' before deciding on benefit. So if the benefit ensues within that few seconds and also lost withing that few seconds, they consider that as no benefit for the purpose of advantage.
In mine/our case, once benefit ensues within the few seconds, we consider advantage done and dusted otherwise we wait the whole of few seconds.
TBH, I blame IFAB for this conflict of application and to be even more honest I don't want them to though that law because the chances are that an attempt to fix it will make it even more confusing.
The other debate we have had on this is on when to signal advantage, when waiting for it to ensue, or when it has ensued?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Well, here's a thought: this whole mess could be sorted if we accepted that the only advantage in the final third of the pitch is a goal. If the non-offending team don't score...back we come for the free kick (or penalty). And to all those who scream about "two bites at the cherry", look at it this way: if the defence had not fouled, the attack would have only had the one bite; by offending, they give them the second chance too. That might make defenders think before committing cynical fouls.
If advantage is applied properly, you only Get 1 bite...
one
RefChat Addict
See my post #8 is response to 'those who scream' if the defence had not fouled.
. The LOTG is about fairness and restoring the balance not about punishment. That's why the triple punishment was taken out. That's why SPA + advantage is no longer a yellow card.But let's say we go with your suggestion and after a few seconds there is no goal but attackers still have the ball with a promising attack. What do you do? Do you suggest to wait until a goal is scored or ball goes out of play? If not why not? If it's too harsh to the defenders then they should not have committed the foul in the first place right?
Better still, what happens if the attacking side then commit a foul themselves during this period? What if it's SFP?See my post #8 is response to 'those who scream' if the defence had not fouled.
But let's say we go with your suggestion and after a few seconds there is no goal but attackers still have the ball with a promising attack. What do you do? Do you suggest to wait until a goal is scored or ball goes out of play? If not why not? If it's too harsh to the defenders then they should not have committed the foul in the first place right?
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
but as the shot was 10/12 yards unobstructed v a free kick from 18 yards with wall and GK set then they HAVE benefitted from the advantage?
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Snap shot with goalkeeper advancing and two defenders in the way... or a direct free kick from a central position 17 metres from goal, and with the attacking team including the best dead ball striker in the league.