A&H

Advantage from offside...

To skip over all of the meta-discussion...

CapnBloodbeard said:
I don't think anybody in the thread is arguing that the OP should have gone back to the offside after the team chose to blow the 'advantage'
Click to expand...
There was an interesting pair of videos I was shown recently as relates to instruction and offside, and I'd like to share them in this discussion, since they seem to be somewhat related to things at hand,

The first shows a player being fouled deep in the attacking end and the ball going immediately to a teammate in offside position. The referee plays an advantage, but immediately pulls it up for the offside offence.

The second show a foul in the defending third. The ball squirts forward to a teammate who makes an immediate pass to a player in offside position. The referee pulls it back for the original foul.

The direction we were given on this was that the first one was a poor call, and because the offside play happens immediately and no advantage is accrued, the referee should bring this one back for the foul, rather than giving the offside. For the second, this is in the gray area. It's acceptable to bring this one back, but it's also acceptable to go with the offside offence. This is due to the amount of time/play that occurs.

The big difference between the two plays is that the first is immediate, while the second has a second player involved before the player in offside position enters the scenario.
 
The Referee Store
Thanks for those alex. Little different to playing 'advantage' from an offside though :)

The first is definitely the wrong decision - foul occurred first.
The second, IMO it should go to the offside offence - it's a 'poor decision' from the attacker. No different to kicking the ball out. The difference with the first one is that there was no touch between the foul and the offside infringement so the team had no opportunity to do anything, poor or otherwise.
 
What do you mean the earth is flat, how can it possibly be flat? Oh, lots of people have studied it for years and they say it is flat, so it must be so.

The point I am making here, is that laws and interpretations of laws change over time (and the offside law itself is a classic example). Just because someone has asserted an interpretation, or what they believe to be best practice, and subsequently trickle that down to those below them (e.g. FA -> CFA -> Assessors -> Assessed), does not mean they are "right" - and here "right" can be very subjective. I remember a few seasons ago attending NAR training at my CFA, and being "taught" the signal for a penalty... And there are plenty of other debates that go on within this site of nuances of interpretation.

For what we have been discussing here though, I simply don't understand how you could better communicate to CARs/NARs/4th Official/Players/Manager/Coaches/Spectators that you have seen (and agree with/accepted) that the assistant has raised their flag for an offside, but have chosen to play on because to do so is more advantageous for the non-offending team, whilst still being able to pull it back for the offside offence if the advantage doesn't accrue.

I did check, and yes - the assessors handbook does state "Distinguish between a genuine advantage and mere retention of possession of the ball" for L5's, and "Distinguishes between advantage and possession by playing advantage when possession is maintained but attacking potential is improved" for L4's. It also states that referees should "Take due regard of the position on the field of play of the players and the ball before applying advantage", and that you should be "Aware of when and how much to make use of the advantage clause, neither over-using it nor missing obvious opportunities to play it"

Rather than supporting the argument against signalling advantage as has been discussed, I think this would actually support the point we have been making - i.e. play an advantage on the offside if the attacking potential is improved, but taking account of the position of the players and the ball. To not do this would be to miss an obvious opportunity to play advantage.

And that, sir, is the argument for the defence. For the "prosecution", I would like to hear the counter-argument, rather than simply "You are wrong".
 
You are wrong on this point but right on the ever changing interpretation of law. In the correct situation, the events described do not constitute advantage. When it changes, I will change my viewpoint.

Orwell would love this.

Don't call me sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top