Advantage

[JH]

The standard procedure is to use the wait-and-see technique, give it around 3 seconds before using a delayed whistle or signalling advantage.

My grey area is when to call it back.

A situation I had was immediately after playing advantage, a through ball was played but his teammate was offside. I gave the offside and the player complained they didn't gain an advantage, I replied that it wasn't my fault that he was offside and that I gave them the opportunity.

If you've decided to play advantage and the player, not under pressure, immediately passes straight to the opposition or an offside player, do you call it back or was that their advantage over?

 

[one]

The answer to your last question in your scenarios is, advantage over.

The instructions/procedure seems to differ somewhat depending on which part of the world you referee in. In Australia, once you have signaled advantage you should not call it back. Therefore in general you wait as long as 'reasonable' before signalling advantage. 'reasonable' could be the full 3 seconds if there is still a bit of struggle to regain control of the ball for example. But it could be less than one second to ensure you don't give the attackers two bites at the cherry.

What constitutes 'two bites at the cherry' is a whole debate of its own.

 

[Peter Grove]

The standard procedure is to use the wait-and-see technique, give it around 3 seconds before using a delayed whistle or signalling advantage.

My grey area is when to call it back.

A situation I had was immediately after playing advantage, a through ball was played but his teammate was offside. I gave the offside and the player complained they didn't gain an advantage, I replied that it wasn't my fault that he was offside and that I gave them the opportunity.

If you've decided to play advantage and the player, not under pressure, immediately passes straight to the opposition or an offside player, do you call it back or was that their advantage over?

If you consider that the player's subsequent actions were not in any way adversely affected by the offence committed against them and they have squandered the advantage all by themselves, you are not obliged to call it back. However the law is quite vague - it simply says that the referee "penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds" but does not outline any specific scenarios under which the offence should or should not be penalised. It's up to you to make the decision based on your opinion and you have "the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game."

I think you also might want to consider whether you really should have played the advantage in the first place. It sounds as if the only 'advantage' gained was to retain possession of the ball and I wonder if that is enough. If the player who had been fouled was really in such an advantageous position, would he have immediately passed the ball? Would the team perhaps have been better off with the free kick?

 

[J79]

It sounds as if the only 'advantage' gained was to retain possession of the ball and I wonder if that is enough.

You actually see that a lot, that the advantage is given just to "let the game flow", with retaining possession being the only "benefit", like when there's a foul by an opponent when a team is playing the ball around at the back. Understandable, but technically it doesn't seem to be ok and it could send the wrong signal to the players (could embolden the offender, frustrate the player (team) fouled).

 

[Ganajin]

You say the player "under no pressure", passed to a PIOP: but how do you know for sure that the player was not affected by the foul expecting a free kick to be called and not making a good tactical decision with the pass? Now if the pass is made to someone, not offside, who runs in and has a good shot that misses...excellent, advantage gained and all the players (including the team who fouled) will realise it. If the fouled team pass to an offside player, pull it back for the free kick. Otherwise the message you give out to the fouling team is: "carry on playing dirty, if they make a hurried mistake that's tough luck". You actually are inviting fouling.

 

[TheKidMaN]

As mentioned above and well explained. "few" gives you a broad spectrum. Just to make it simple when you played advantage consider it until the next phase of play. In you scenario next phase of play was an off side therefore come back to oryginal faul as advantage didn`t take place. It dosen`t matter how long you take ( in reasonable time frames but usually if they will get nothing in up to 5s I would question they gained anything from it unless that would be 1:1 vs keeper) but you have to go with spirit of the game and expectations. Was it expected to come back to oryginal offence ? Most likely yes. Remember that advantage is awarding attacking team that offence was taken against with opportunity to develop a promissing attack. In this case it didn`t happened therefore you can come back to oryginal offence.
It will be much easier to sell free kick to defenders than off side to attackers in that situations considering that you already acknowledged a faul play by playing advantage.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

This is the '2nd bite at the cherry' argument.
WHY did the ball end up with the offside attacker? that's the key question.
If, say, the ball carrier was fouled and the loose ball wound up at an offside attacker, then you go back to the foul because the foul clearly influenced the outcome.
If there's a foul, ball carrier retains possession, runs a bit then makes a pass, then this is a squandered advantage. BUT:
But you also need to look at why - and this is where your awareness comes in to play.
For instance, perhaps before the foul there was a free attacker in an onside position - and he then moved offside after the foul. In that case, there doesn't exist the same OPPORTUNITY after the foul as there was BEFORE. So the attacker shouldn't be punished for that.
running with the ball, has a free attacker to pass it to, was fouled, no doesn't have a legal and free teammate? That's impacted by the foul.

I once had a rather silly scenario of my own doing. Attacker running with the ball near the PA, was fouled. Loose ball goes to an attacker - PLAY ON ADVANTAGE!!! - yes, goal - man, what a brilliant referee I am!! oh, wait, why does my AR have the flag up?
Yep, the receiving attacker was offside. But only received the ball due to the foul. Had to disallow the goal and award an attacking free kick

and that was the last time I ever awarded a goal without glancing at the AR

 

[JH]

If you consider that the player's subsequent actions were not in any way adversely affected by the offence committed against them and they have squandered the advantage all by themselves, you are not obliged to call it back. However the law is quite vague - it simply says that the referee "penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds" but does not outline any specific scenarios under which the offence should or should not be penalised. It's up to you to make the decision based on your opinion and you have "the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game."

I think you also might want to consider whether you really should have played the advantage in the first place. It sounds as if the only 'advantage' gained was to retain possession of the ball and I wonder if that is enough. If the player who had been fouled was really in such an advantageous position, would he have immediately passed the ball? Would the team perhaps have been better off with the free kick?

If they'd have played it right, he was through on goal, the attacker was fully balanced when picking the pass. I remember seeing Mike Dean play advantage, arms in the air signalling it, then when the player immediately lost the ball due to a poor pass, he didn't call it back but instead shook his head in disappointment. I think the laws should be clearer because everything about advantage is a bit vague.

 

[JH]

You actually see that a lot, that the advantage is given just to "let the game flow", with retaining possession being the only "benefit", like when there's a foul by an opponent when a team is playing the ball around at the back. Understandable, but technically it doesn't seem to be ok and it could send the wrong signal to the players (could embolden the offender, frustrate the player (team) fouled).

Uefa has some guidelines that say something along the lines of 'don't play advantage just for a team to retain possession', it depends on the severity of the foul and the position on the pitch, but no player wants the game stopping every 2 minutes for a little kick, even if all they do is retain the ball. It slows the game down unnecessarily.

 

[JH]

You say the player "under no pressure", passed to a PIOP: but how do you know for sure that the player was not affected by the foul expecting a free kick to be called and not making a good tactical decision with the pass? Now if the pass is made to someone, not offside, who runs in and has a good shot that misses...excellent, advantage gained and all the players (including the team who fouled) will realise it. If the fouled team pass to an offside player, pull it back for the free kick. Otherwise the message you give out to the fouling team is: "carry on playing dirty, if they make a hurried mistake that's tough luck". You actually are inviting fouling.

That begs the question, is advantage the opportunity, or the outcome?

When you play advantage you give them the opportunity to carry on and attack, if their own technical ability or poor decision making lets them down is it really fair to let them have another opportunity?

It needs clarification in the rules because you see professional referees that both do and don't have sympathy if the team loses the ball after the advantage has just been given.

 

[RustyRef]

Speaking as an observer, this is one of the biggest problems I see referees having. They mistake possession for advantage, and often fail to take into account the position on the pitch and also the position of opponents. Referees need to look at all factors rather than one in isolation. For example, an attacker having the ball in the final third running towards ball might be a bad example if he's running straight into two defenders. Whereas an advantage without possession in the defensive half might be a good advantage if the attacker is likely to get the ball and has space to run into.

In terms of when to pull it back, it can only depend on why the advantage breaks down. A player fluffing the pass is a lot different to it breaking down because the fouled player never got his balance back.

 

[Padfoot]

Simple answer.....don't play advantage unless they are about to slot the ball into an open net.

Referees get themselves into far too much trouble by trying to play advantages.....the vast majority of which are not actually advantageous at all.

You also have to consider the ability of the players.....they may think they play like Messi but the reality is often very different.

You'll cause yourself less issues by playing virtually no advantage than by trying to play ones that are dubious.

 

[GraemeS]

And I'm going to repeat the response I give every time Padfoot puts forward that opinion on advantage: Players know what advantage is, will expect you to use it and will appreciate it when you do. Refusing every possible advantage will wind players up much more than trying to let the game flow and pulling it back as long as you're open and communicate clearly what you were trying to do.

 

[JH]

Speaking as an observer, this is one of the biggest problems I see referees having. They mistake possession for advantage, and often fail to take into account the position on the pitch and also the position of opponents. Referees need to look at all factors rather than one in isolation. For example, an attacker having the ball in the final third running towards ball might be a bad example if he's running straight into two defenders. Whereas an advantage without possession in the defensive half might be a good advantage if the attacker is likely to get the ball and has space to run into.

In terms of when to pull it back, it can only depend on why the advantage breaks down. A player fluffing the pass is a lot different to it breaking down because the fouled player never got his balance back.

So if its solely the player's fault for the advantage breaking down, don't bring it back?

 

[RustyRef]

So if its solely the player's fault for the advantage breaking down, don't bring it back?

Absolutely, so for example, a player is fouled and his balance is completely unaffected, then after the advantage he over-hits the pass straight out for a throw-in, or straight to the keeper, why should he get a second chance. Whereas if he never got balance back and the fluffed the pass you'd be right to pull it back.

Where offside is involved you need to look at what offence occurred first. So, and attacker plays the ball to a player is in an office position but is then wiped out after he plays the ball but before the player in an offside position receives it. In years gone by laws the offence would occur once the ball was played, so you wouldn't pull the advantage back. These days the offence is only penalised once the offside player plays the ball, assuming he has interfered with an opponent, so the foul occurs before the offside and you should pull play back for the foul.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Simple answer.....don't play advantage unless they are about to slot the ball into an open net.

Referees get themselves into far too much trouble by trying to play advantages.....the vast majority of which are not actually advantageous at all.

You also have to consider the ability of the players.....they may think they play like Messi but the reality is often very different.

You'll cause yourself less issues by playing virtually no advantage than by trying to play ones that are dubious.

You'll cause yourself far fewer problems by actually learning how to maintain situational awareness and recognise possession + opportunity and actually applying advantage as required by the LOTG rather than take your approach.

 

[Padfoot]

You'll cause yourself far fewer problems by actually learning how to maintain situational awareness and recognise possession + opportunity and actually applying advantage as required by the LOTG rather than take your approach.

No. You won't.

Not at grassroots level of football. As you progress up the pyramid you may be able to play more advantages successfully.....

Players know that 'advantage' exists however they vastly overrate their ability to make use of it, so when it breaks down they expect you to pull it back.....and get miffed when you don't. You then have to explain to them that the reason the 'advantage' failed was because their ability didn't match their ambition.....which they will be delighted to hear and won't in any way consider it to be your fault.

Anyone between 7-5 on the promotion trail needs to VERY careful with advantage.

 

[santa sangria]

Also heavily depends on the level, players' ability, conditions, match context and how heated the game is.

I had two mens' close-to-hobby games last night. It was mixed ability. There was lots of contact I could have penalised, some small fouls where I could have played advantage... it wasn't a niggly game even though there were lots of minor offences. All the teams wanted to keep passing in defence and midfield. It would have been ridiculous to keep stopping the game, or to keep hollering advantages - I would have had 50+ advantages last night! I made I think 4 actual advantage signals. Of course, fouls where possession changed, anything heated, borderline reckless or worse, of course penalised.

In a slower, mixed ability game - where the guys want to have lots of contact - that isn't heated like these, it made sense. I was also alone. If you have ARs then this approach is a nightmare for them (ARs imply a high level anyway).

However, I made sure I communicated every incident to the players. "I saw that, carry on", "let's play" etc. More than that I tried to make sure that I quickly talked to individual players about any potentially key incidents. Anyway I couldn't and wouldn't take this approach with faster, higher level, heated games, but here it was fitting.

(3 YC, one disallowed goal for the captain' blatant push before he headed in a corner, one Dele-Alli-esque offside wait and see that lead to an equaliser, 35 minute halves so 15km on the night for the two games).

 

[GraemeS]

No. You won't.

Not at grassroots level of football. As you progress up the pyramid you may be able to play more advantages successfully.....

Players know that 'advantage' exists however they vastly overrate their ability to make use of it, so when it breaks down they expect you to pull it back.....and get miffed when you don't. You then have to explain to them that the reason the 'advantage' failed was because their ability didn't match their ambition.....which they will be delighted to hear and won't in any way consider it to be your fault.

Anyone between 7-5 on the promotion trail needs to VERY careful with advantage.

Who on earth thinks it would be a good idea to say "Your ability doesn't match your ambition" to a player? Of course that wouldn't go down well - but trying to suggest that this is the only possible way of dealing with this eventuality is ridiculous.

I will happily pull the play back quite a long way if the advantage doesn't come off (which I think helps sell it when I don't do so), but when I don't, it's fairly easy to sell with "You had the opportunity" or "The advantage was that pass/shot/movement back there". I don't understand why this is thought to be difficult?

 

[Padfoot]

Who on earth thinks it would be a good idea to say "Your ability doesn't match your ambition" to a player? Of course that wouldn't go down well - but trying to suggest that this is the only possible way of dealing with this eventuality is ridiculous.

I will happily pull the play back quite a long way if the advantage doesn't come off (which I think helps sell it when I don't do so), but when I don't, it's fairly easy to sell with "You had the opportunity" or "The advantage was that pass/shot/movement back there". I don't understand why this is thought to be difficult?

Only so many ways of saying they wasted an advantage.......of course, if they wasted it because they are crap, then was it really an advantage in the first place?