HertsFinest
Next Weeks Ref
Not just me that needs to read more eh 
Advantage from offside...
- Thread starter RegalRef
- Start date
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
The 'defending' team has regained possession and is not disadvantaged by the offside. There's no 2 ways around it - awarding the offside in that case is simply wrong. Not your fault some players are daft.
If I was assessing a referee and he blew the offside after it was cleared when it looks like it's going to a teammate, I'd be looking to mark that referee down.
In most cases you'll blow it then because the clearance is, at best, a 50-50. But in the case where you've thought that something can happen, or it's going to be a late whistle, no offside is the correct decision.
Says who? Which page says Advantage only applies to Law 12?
I often use advantage if everyone is screaming for an offside but im not sure, but then the ball rolls through to the keeper. I play advantage because it's not affected the game but stops the back 4 moaning at me. Technically incorrect way of dealing with it id presume, but in terms of match control it works a treat
RegalRef
Politically Incorrect
Must admit I often do this if I'm on my own, and CAR's don't do offside in these parts.
Shows how players will sometimes argue to the death about something that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'm sure he has read all the previous posts. And if he has, he's probably read coherent arguments from myself, @CapnBloodbeard ,@Peter Grove and others that give an alternative point of view! Overall, I'm genuinely concerned at the disparity of opinion on this issue within folks on here whose opinion I strongly respect .. offside is a frequent occurrence in every game and lack of clarity about whether we should or shouldn't play advantage helps no one at all.
If I choose not to enforce an AR's signal, it's for one of three reasons. He's made a foolish error in law (like forgetting there was a defender on the line), he's not got full information (eg the last intentional play of the ball was actually a defender not an attacker) OR, whilst there has been an offside offence committed, I believe there is an advantage to the defending team NOT to penalise the infringement. In this latter case, I continue to see no difference between this and choosing not to penalise a clear foul for the same reason. In both cases an infringement HAS happened but it's better to play on than stop the game.
Brian, you're obviously really strong in your opinion on this and I'm sure there's good reasons for this. However I'm surprised the apparent lack of support for this opinion in the LOTG doesn't give you cause to question it a little more ....
There is obviously a lack of clarity around this issue. I've been arguing my case based upon the LotG and the interpretations it contains (within the good book itself). Nothing says that you can't, nor shouldn't, be able to play advantage for an offside offence; in fact the text would indicate the opposite to be possible. And I'm not going to be convinced that you can't or shouldn't simply because someone says so in CAPS.
Why is there a lack of clarity? Russell you've answered your own query (highlighted). It's still not an advantage.
You're right xPositor, I do have very strong feelings about this. I am sick to the back teeth of forum users trying to shout down those who have refereed and currently assess at a higher level in the game. They do know what they are talking about and no amount of quoting what they do on MotD will change that. For your level of football and for 95% or more of the users on this forum, they know more about refereeing than you do.
If you want me to refer you to a publication - Supply League Assessor's handbook published in November 2015
Distinguishes between advantage and possession by playing advantage when possession is maintained but attacking potential is improved.
Assessor's handbook, which can be found on this very website. This is stated in the assessor's handbook as a requirement of a level 5
Distinguish between a genuine advantage and mere retention of possession of the ball
Where did I say advantage only applied to Law 12?CaptnBloodbeard said:
Last edited:
See below and also show me where I said advantage only applies to Law 12?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Brian, I can see no evidence of less experienced forum users trying to 'shout down' more experienced referees like yourself. On the contrary, I'm very aware that more generally I've learnt a huge amount from both this forum generally and from your input specifically. The only 'shouting' seemed to come when you posted in CAPS.
I've also seen no evidence of anyone on here advocating playing advantage from an offside when there is no improved attacking potential but simply retention of possession. There's certainly some disagreement about what constitutes enhanced attacking potential though .. and you're completely right that we should be very cautious about this as offsides are often (though not always) in the defensive third of the field.
For clarity, the two most obvious situations where I would consider it advantageous to play on rather than give an offside offence would be
1) Where an offside attacker plays the ball from say 10 yards outside the penalty area but it goes straight into the arms of the keeper.
2) Where an offside attacker plays the ball but it falls straight to a defender who hoofs it upfield immediately starting a promising attack
I think (but I'm not sure!) that all of us, yourself included, would advocate playing on in these scenarios rather than stopping for the offside. So the point at issue is simply whether these are straightforward examples of playing advantage as you might for any other infringement, or whether offside is some kind of 'special case'. And those of us arguing the former are leaning on the LOTG to support our case.
I certainly don't wish to annoy you or increase your level of 'fed upness'! But I do wish to have a constructive debate rather than just 'it's like this because I say so'
I've also seen no evidence of anyone on here advocating playing advantage from an offside when there is no improved attacking potential but simply retention of possession. There's certainly some disagreement about what constitutes enhanced attacking potential though .. and you're completely right that we should be very cautious about this as offsides are often (though not always) in the defensive third of the field.
For clarity, the two most obvious situations where I would consider it advantageous to play on rather than give an offside offence would be
1) Where an offside attacker plays the ball from say 10 yards outside the penalty area but it goes straight into the arms of the keeper.
2) Where an offside attacker plays the ball but it falls straight to a defender who hoofs it upfield immediately starting a promising attack
I think (but I'm not sure!) that all of us, yourself included, would advocate playing on in these scenarios rather than stopping for the offside. So the point at issue is simply whether these are straightforward examples of playing advantage as you might for any other infringement, or whether offside is some kind of 'special case'. And those of us arguing the former are leaning on the LOTG to support our case.
I certainly don't wish to annoy you or increase your level of 'fed upness'! But I do wish to have a constructive debate rather than just 'it's like this because I say so'
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Am I the only person who thinks this is an utterly pointless semantic debate?
On one hand, people are saying we apply advantage.
On the other hand, people are arguing it's not advantage but merely the referee allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from doing so rather than stopping play.
Literally, the ONLY difference is whether we're shouting at the keeper "PLAY ON!!" or "KEEP PLAYING!!!" and the only person who would care about that is an assessor - and even that's a maybe.
There is no other onfield difference whatsoever. At least, none that I can imagine and certainly none that's raised in this thread.
On one hand, people are saying we apply advantage.
On the other hand, people are arguing it's not advantage but merely the referee allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from doing so rather than stopping play.
Literally, the ONLY difference is whether we're shouting at the keeper "PLAY ON!!" or "KEEP PLAYING!!!" and the only person who would care about that is an assessor - and even that's a maybe.
There is no other onfield difference whatsoever. At least, none that I can imagine and certainly none that's raised in this thread.
HertsFinest
Next Weeks Ref
It is quite simple really 
Personally if I play 'advantage' from an offside I wait and see and don't signal. Have done this under assessment and been praised for distinguishing between a penal advantage and a 'silent' wait and see advantage for offside
Personally if I play 'advantage' from an offside I wait and see and don't signal. Have done this under assessment and been praised for distinguishing between a penal advantage and a 'silent' wait and see advantage for offside
Brian, I can see no evidence of less experienced forum users trying to 'shout down' more experienced referees like yourself. On the contrary, I'm very aware that more generally I've learnt a huge amount from both this forum generally and from your input specifically. The only 'shouting' seemed to come when you posted in CAPS.
I've also seen no evidence of anyone on here advocating playing advantage from an offside when there is no improved attacking potential but simply retention of possession. There's certainly some disagreement about what constitutes enhanced attacking potential though .. and you're completely right that we should be very cautious about this as offsides are often (though not always) in the defensive third of the field.
For clarity, the two most obvious situations where I would consider it advantageous to play on rather than give an offside offence would be
1) Where an offside attacker plays the ball from say 10 yards outside the penalty area but it goes straight into the arms of the keeper.
2) Where an offside attacker plays the ball but it falls straight to a defender who hoofs it upfield immediately starting a promising attack
I think (but I'm not sure!) that all of us, yourself included, would advocate playing on in these scenarios rather than stopping for the offside. So the point at issue is simply whether these are straightforward examples of playing advantage as you might for any other infringement, or whether offside is some kind of 'special case'. And those of us arguing the former are leaning on the LOTG to support our case.
I certainly don't wish to annoy you or increase your level of 'fed upness'! But I do wish to have a constructive debate rather than just 'it's like this because I say so'
It's not I say so but more please believe us because we know what we are talking about.
This assessor cares about it and so does Lincs22. In this situation you can say keep going but don't use the words or the arm signal (for advantage). It's not semantics, it's a conscious decision not to penalise and it's a specific category for assessment
There you go, it's a "wait and see" offside decision, not an advantage. Thanks HertFinest, you got us past the semantics thing.It is quite simple really
Personally if I play 'advantage' from an offside I wait and see and don't signal. Have done this under assessment and been praised for distinguishing between a penal advantage and a 'silent' wait and see advantage for offside
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
And this makes sense.
So, if we go back to the OP's original and the point about "I was about to wave the big arms and play advantage", what do we, the great unwashed, learn?
I take away that, when faced with an offside decision, don't think about signalling advantage or playing advantage, instead think "wait and see". If the OP had been thinking "wait and see" then, by allowing play to continue, and then penalising the hand ball is, it's all simple and logical and according to the laws, with no grey areas.
Even with the childish abuse I am happy and can take something positive from here
Glad you caught up.And this makes sense.
So, if we go back to the OP's original and the point about "I was about to wave the big arms and play advantage", what do we, the great unwashed, learn?
I take away that, when faced with an offside decision, don't think about signalling advantage or playing advantage, instead think "wait and see". If the OP had been thinking "wait and see" then, by allowing play to continue, and then penalising the hand ball is, it's all simple and logical and according to the laws, with no grey areas.
Even with the childish abuse I am happy and can take something positive from here
Abuse? Not even at room temperature.
RegalRef
Politically Incorrect
And this makes sense.
So, if we go back to the OP's original and the point about "I was about to wave the big arms and play advantage", what do we, the great unwashed, learn?
I take away that, when faced with an offside decision, don't think about signalling advantage or playing advantage, instead think "wait and see". If the OP had been thinking "wait and see" then, by allowing play to continue, and then penalising the hand ball is, it's all simple and logical and according to the laws, with no grey areas.
Even with the childish abuse I am happy and can take something positive from here
So the OP'er was correct, as he was waiting and seeing.
Abuse? Come on, some of us left the playground many, many moons ago.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
...but you keep going back to try and find your glasses?
You never forget to talk your ball home though, do you...
HertsFinest
Next Weeks Ref
Now I'm lost
RegalRef
Politically Incorrect
I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.
Anyway, if I intend to offend you, believe me you'll know about it.
There do seem a few on here who are a little..errr, 'sensitive'...
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
So I think Brian hamilton agrees that this is a purely semantic discussion with zero impact whatsoever on how we referee...Except, semantically, he takes umbridge at the word 'semantics'. So now we're having a semantic debate about whether we're having a semantic debate.
And who ever said that referees spend way too much time discussing crap that doesn't matter!!
The fact that it may be its own assessment category doesn't exclude it from being purely semantics.
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'
And who ever said that referees spend way too much time discussing crap that doesn't matter!!
That's pretty much a strong argument in favour that it's still semantics. It's the exact same outcome, it's the exact same way of thinking, just because for whatever arbitrary reason that isn't in the laws anyway we've decided not to give it a particular name that carries a particular signal.
The fact that it may be its own assessment category doesn't exclude it from being purely semantics.
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'
Last edited: