Unwanted advantage

[bester]

Not playing obvious advantages also risks match control. Having said that some referees have such poor reading of the game they'd be best advised not to play them at all.

Common scenario on a Sunday in my local bottom division is a team of vets who have two centre halfs winning every header versus a team of youngsters who have just started out in adult football.
Do the youngsters want a free kick on the halfway line when they break past the midfield, or an opportunity to run at that the rotund centre backs?

 

[jdmesp]

I'm with @Padfoot on this one. Every single time you play advantage you risk some game control. Lots of teams think they have "advantage" because they keep possession. I have had players disagree with me for calling a foul in their own defensive third because they thought they had advantage. That's nonsense. Only in the highest levels of the amateur game and above should advantage be given more than once in a match.

Not playing an obvious advantage risks match control, but only if the "obvious advantage" involves a true chance in on goal. Otherwise, you don't risk match control by giving the foul. The players are not going to remember you whistling the foul instead of giving advantage in their own defensive half (whether they complain about it at the time or not), but the player that gets fouled only to see his team lose the ball a mere 10 seconds after you play advantage will remember that foul.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Only in the highest levels of the amateur game and above should advantage be given more than once in a match.

How can you possibly justify that statement?

 

[PinnerPaul]

Problem at lower levels is that if you delay the whistle then you get the shouts of "You're only giving that coz they appealed ref!"

Yes I know you can explain/signal advantage but as we all know players "sometimes" don't listen to a word we say!

 

[GraemeS]

The players are not going to remember you whistling the foul instead of giving advantage in their own defensive half (whether they complain about it at the time or not), but the player that gets fouled only to see his team lose the ball a mere 10 seconds after you play advantage will remember that foul.

Utter rubbish I'm afraid. The toughest match I had last season was a result of me denying some situations where one team thought they had an advantage and getting on my back as a result of it. Think Clattenburg at the weekend, where both players end up on the floor, but it's the fouled player who gets up first and gets frustrated when a foul is given for him.

Experienced grassroots players will understand the flow of the game as well or better than most grassroots referees and they'll know when you've missed an easy or "significant" advantage. Do that more than once and they'll start to get on your back about it - and then there comes a point where you've got to make a decision about dissent and cards

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I'm also going to call BS on padfoot's theories ;-)

Either he's assessing in a rather poorly trained area, or perhaps it's him with the incorrect perception of advantage ;-)

Yet another example (to me at least) of where rugby has the advantage rule right and football doesn't.

Why not allow play to continue to see if an advantage accrues and, if it doesn't, bring play back for the FK.

Either way, you're only awarding a free kick because that team stopped and stared at you. Doesn't look good at all.

For what it's worth, in Australia we do the 'don't call advantage until it's happened'. So not sure if that affects my perspective here or not...probably not, because even in that 'wait and see' stage, I'm not going to call it just because some

I feel that advantage is one of the strongest part of my game (backed up by assessors as well!) and I always wait until the attacking team has advantage before signalling it. I do the whistle to the mouth, late whistle if it's going no where or play on advantage if it does. Never been pulled up for doing it this way.

Don't put the whistle to the mouth unless you're going to blow it. Looks indecisive.

I'm with @Padfoot on this one. Every single time you play advantage you risk some game control

Lol, what? Everytime you don't play advantage you have the same risk. The only way 'match control' should come into it is if it's an incident that you know needs immediate attention. Beyond that, don't think 'advantage hurts match control' because it's rubbish. Just do your job and let the match control sort itself out

. Lots of teams think they have "advantage" because they keep possession. I have had players disagree with me for calling a foul in their own defensive third because they thought they had advantage. That's nonsense. Only in the highest levels of the amateur game and above should advantage be given more than once in a match.

That's a ridiculous comment. Some games, the fouls just happen to fall that way. Sometimes they don't. Giving no advantages in a match is not categorically incorrect. Neither is giving 10.

Advantage can certainly happen in a team's defensive third. It's less likely, but it can happen. I've given plenty.

Not playing an obvious advantage risks match control, but only if the "obvious advantage" involves a true chance in on goal.

This is a misconception on advantage. Possession + opportunity. It's not complex.

 

[SLI39]

Very very very few, if any, advantages played on a Sunday morning are beneficial.....the vast majority would be better served by the fk.

So many referees take risks with their match control in order to play a perceived advantage....whether they get away with it or not, it is a risk and will be picked up on when assessed.

Unless the ball is going into the net.....don't play the advantage.......holds true for 99% of Sunday league games, and probably 75% of Saturday games outside of the semi-pro game.

I must say I agree. Playing advantage does seem to carry unnecessary risk at times; at worst, it feels like an ornament to your refereeing, which merely shows off a certain skills; but in the absence of a qualified assessor very few in attendance receive or recognise much benefit. I do find the idea of advantage useful for communicating with older players and educating younger ones ("Ok, lads, no advantage there; free kick back here.")--this often relies on a late whistle, which I would argue does not betoken hesitancy if done correctly--but occasions where such plays are satisfactorily fulfilled are rare for some of the reasons you have mentioned.
At a higher level, only the most eagle-eyed players and coaches tend to bemoan the missed opportunity of an advantage. I am far more likely to find myself running back to a player who's wondering aloud to all within earshot how on earth I missed the foul. My reflections probably go back to a game I had in my first year of refereeing: it was a local derby which I let flow with two or three advantages. The team who wrote to complain about my performance obviously hadn't understood my intentions at the time and assumed I had simply let the fouls go. My subsequent self-evaluation was three-fold: 1) use more discretion with advantages, 2) be very clear that that's what you're playing, and 3) don't let it compromise your ability to assess misconduct.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Why do referee's have this mentality that all players are moron's? It's like the players thinking all referee's are ba*****s. I have heard arguments against advantage here based on "Sunday League" and only give them "Above a certain level", sorry but that's rubbish. Come and referee in my Sunday League as I can tell you it is a pretty decent standard of football and as for the "certain level", I can remember my first ever game which was a pre-season friendly between two 2 clubs, 4th teams I was moaned at for not giving an advantage.

Its a great skill to have and I cant see a plausible argument on here to tell me otherwise.

 

[Kes]

My reflections probably go back to a game I had in my first year of refereeing: it was a local derby which I let flow with two or three advantages. The team who wrote to complain about my performance obviously hadn't understood my intentions at the time and assumed I had simply let the fouls go. My subsequent self-evaluation was three-fold: 1) use more discretion with advantages, 2) be very clear that that's what you're playing, and 3) don't let it compromise your ability to assess misconduct.

Holding your arms up in the air and shouting "play on advantage" in a very loud clear voice is about as clear as anything can be mate.
If this team thought you were simply "letting fouls go" then you can't have been doing it right......

 

[Kes]

Its a great skill to have and I cant see a plausible argument on here to tell me otherwise.

That's because there actually isn't one. Not really.
Fact is, at grass roots level it's often more advantageous to the attacking team to have play just continue (even in their own half) than have everything stop and allow the opposition to reorganise defensively for the free kick. Some of the doom-goblins on here just can't (or won't) see it.

 

[PinnerPaul]

That's because there actually isn't one. Not really.
Fact is, at grass roots level it's often more advantageous to the attacking team to have play just continue (even in their own half) than have everything stop and allow the opposition to reorganise defensively for the free kick. Some of the doom-goblins on here just can't (or won't) see it.

Think its more than that Kes to be fair.

Have had level 4/5s tell me in pre match that as an AR I shouldn't expect and/or play advantage for fouls in own half.

 

[GraemeS]

Think its more than that Kes to be fair.

Have had level 4/5s tell me in pre match that as an AR I shouldn't expect and/or play advantage for fouls in own half.

I've had that on an assessment, and I have little to no problem with referees who believe that, or who want to implement it in their own matches. But in attacking 1/3rds, advantage should be an option at any level in an appropriate situation.

 

[SLI39]

Holding your arms up in the air and shouting "play on advantage" in a very loud clear voice is about as clear as anything can be mate.
If this team thought you were simply "letting fouls go" then you can't have been doing it right......

Holding your arms up in the air and shouting "play on advantage" in a very loud clear voice is about as clear as anything can be mate.
If this team thought you were simply "letting fouls go" then you can't have been doing it right......

That's a fair point, especially given my inexperience. I don't remember the report that well, but I think they also contested how appropriate the advantages were for the game itself and in terms of the individual fouls. Whether you cite this as a criticism or not, playing advantage is high-risk refereeing because it is only in a perfect scenario that you can cite quantifiable profit (i.e. a goal or perhaps a free-kick closer to goal), whereas you can always fall back on the award of a free-kick in subsequent discussions, no questions asked.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

That's a fair point, especially given my inexperience. I don't remember the report that well, but I think they also contested how appropriate the advantages were for the game itself and in terms of the individual fouls. Whether you cite this as a criticism or not, playing advantage is high-risk refereeing because it is only in a perfect scenario that you can cite quantifiable profit (i.e. a goal or perhaps a free-kick closer to goal), whereas you can always fall back on the award of a free-kick in subsequent discussions, no questions asked.

So the only quantifiable profit to playing advantage is a goal or a free-kick closer to goal, not the advantage is having an advantage. I really don't see the issue!!

 

[jdmesp]

Half of "advantages" at lower levels of play result in the attacking team losing the ball mere seconds later from a bad pass. If you think giving an advantage does not risk match control, then I simply don't know what to say... Not giving a proper advantage risks game control (proper in the sense that there is a clear attacking opportunity in the attacking third), but not giving an advantage in the defensive third for a proper foul is much less risky than giving it, only to see the team lose the ball relatively quickly (with an aggrieved player now pi**ed off that he was fouled and you didn't call it).

The point is not that you won't get moaned it; players moan for not getting an advantage all the time. But unless you stop a clear attack in on goal, that moaning isn't going to last, assuming you've done your job properly. Give the damn foul!

 

[Cheshire Ref]

. If you think giving an advantage does not risk match control, then I simply don't know what to say... !

But that is just it, match control comes into question if you give a bad advantage, it is merely a decision you have made during 90 minutes. Am I not right in thinking that any bad decision will effect match control? Foul, no foul. Advantage, no advantage. Hand ball, no hand ball......What's the difference?

 

[Kes]

Half of "advantages" at lower levels of play result in the attacking team losing the ball mere seconds later from a bad pass. If you think giving an advantage does not risk match control, then I simply don't know what to say... Not giving a proper advantage risks game control (proper in the sense that there is a clear attacking opportunity in the attacking third), but not giving an advantage in the defensive third for a proper foul is much less risky than giving it, only to see the team lose the ball relatively quickly (with an aggrieved player now pi**ed off that he was fouled and you didn't call it).

The point is not that you won't get moaned it; players moan for not getting an advantage all the time. But unless you stop a clear attack in on goal, that moaning isn't going to last, assuming you've done your job properly. Give the damn foul!

As others have already said. Using a rule of thumb like that is counter-effective to good refereeing. True, 95% of fouls committed against a team in their own half will yield no obvious advantage potential but to say it can't and doesn't happen is daft.
Even dafter is the claim by some on here that advantage in general isn't for grass roots football - what a load of old pants.

 

[RefJef]

A fascinating discussion, but one which still leaves my initial query unanswered.

Why not, like rugby, allow play to continue until an advantage has accrued, and the call "advantage over" or when no advantage is forthcoming, bring the play back? But allow more than mere seconds for the advantage to accrue, no time limit. Just like rugby.

I have reffed football & rugby - on the whole, ref-ing rugby is harder: all that technical stuff at scrums etc. - I've got no idea whats going on (and the real physical implications to the players if you get it wring is frightening) but the advantage law in rugby (and conceding an extra 10 yards for arguing a decision) are much better in the oval ball sport. Playing advantage in rugby is easy - everyone knows that a foul had been committed, everyone accepts that play will come back if no advantage is gained. Simple.

 

[jdmesp]

The claim is not that advantage never exists in their own half. The claim is 99% of advantages that are given in the defending third result in absolutely nothing, not even a chance on goal. This does not mean--nor imply--that any given advantage is not going result in a chance. The argument is that, on average, you are much safer giving the foul than allowing the advantage.

Anyone that reads my previous comments as saying advantage "never exists" at lower levels of the game is willfully misinterpreting my point. To use your own words, @Kes, thinking that's my argument is daft.

 

[Kes]

The claim is not that advantage never exists in their own half. The claim is 99% of advantages that are given in the defending third result in absolutely nothing, not even a chance on goal. This does not mean--nor imply--that any given advantage is not going result in a chance. The argument is that, on average, you are much safer giving the foul than allowing the advantage.

Anyone that reads my previous comments as saying advantage "never exists" at lower levels of the game is willfully misinterpreting my point. To use your own words, @Kes, thinking that's my argument is daft.

My comment wasn't so much directed at you to be honest.
I think we're at cross purposes here. I agree that you are always generally better off giving the foul - especially in the defensive third but that recognition of an advantage that can be played further up field is a good skill to have and happens at least once in every match - particularly in the grass roots matches I referee.