Should be a simple answers for you guys but I had a situation where a player in an offside position receives the ball from a teammate and their 1st touch goes right to the goalkeeper who scoops it up and punts it up field. I blow the whistle for offside, but the coach is upset because he wants advantage to be played. I don't see where I can play advantage in this situation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but advantage is for fouls, some misconduct, and now restarts (foul throws, goal kicks, etc). Thoughts? Thanks!
Advantage on an Offside Offense
- Thread starter NOVARef
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Advantage can be played for any offence (or incorrectly taken restart) that occurs, where the other team will benefit from playing advantage - so as the attacker committed an offside offence, you can play advantage from it.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Thanks. I certainly read this section but, for some reason, I "read" fouls in my mind and not offenses. My bad. With this all said, in general, I think that, more often than not, the keeper having the ball in their hands would be an advantage unless that was one hell of a big touch from the attacking player.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
We absolutely can play advantage on OS. But there seems to be a built in resistance to doing so. Even in professional games OS seems to be routinely whistled when the ball is in the GK's hands. (And it probably happens more in those games because of delayed flags in the world of VAR.) I really don't understand why the flag isn't waved down and advantage played on those.
LothianRef
Member
If a goalkeeper has it fully in their hands and under control then I’ll play advantage. Any other time I’ll give the (indirect) free kick. Playing advantage in the defensive third is just not worth the risk.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I'm going to defend USSF (a little bit) here. Often (certainly not always) what USSF had in the Advice to Referees (which no longer exists) was taken from prior IFAB decisions or advice that was no longer circulated. (I think some of them went back to the Decisions of the International Board, which was the second column of the Laws book back in the Roman Numeral Days of the Laws.) And there were discussions with IFAB or FIFA (I forget which) about the ATR--in one case famously resulting in a difference between the printed version of that year's edition and the same year's on-line edition. (It was a somewhat obscure type of event where the question was whether the restart was a GK or IFK--I don't remember exactly.) On this particular issue, I don't recall the genesis of this particular advice in the ATR. But I agree the game is better without limiting the possibility of advantage to Law 12. (Though I think extending to improper restarts was a mistake.)
I miss the ATR. While its faults were what was always what got highlighted, it was a tremendous resource for new referees who didn't have a lot of experience with the Game before they started reffing. And in the US, that was a lot of those going into reffing soccer who didn't play as kids. But I think now there is also better information available for other sources and more new refs are former players, so it would be less valuable than it once was.
It was the USSF that invented the nonsense, only recently clarified, that the GK could handle the ball if the ball was "in" the PA (i.e. even just overhanging the edge of the PA). It's taken decades to get back to the original and obvious meaning that the GK cannot touch the ball if his hand is outside the PA.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
See also offside IDFK close to goal line vs goal kick. Much better for the defending team to wave down the offside flag and give the goal kick.
TBH I never signal advantage in this situation but I do clearly signal the wave down, goal kick and communicate/shout it.
TBH I never signal advantage in this situation but I do clearly signal the wave down, goal kick and communicate/shout it.
one
RefChat Addict
I don't think that was USSF. It was the convention from as long as I remember everywhere i know including in Australia.
Here is a scenario, the ball is mostly over the gola line. A small part of the ball is over hanging the goal line in the penalty area. The goalkeeper touches the part of the ball that is outside the PA with his hand. What is your decision?
The Laws don't actually cover it, as 12.5 only states that for offences outside the FoP committed against a match official or an opposing player, substitute, substituted player or sent-off player, or team official, play is restarted with a free kick on the nearest boundary line (or penalty if that would be within the penalty area). As a handling offence isn't committed against any person, that wouldn't apply. As such, you'd apply the spirit of the Laws - if it's the goalkeeper handling, then no offence. If it's an outfield player, it's a penalty.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
There are a lot of people who like to heap blame on USSF for things in the ATR that came directly from FIFA or IFAB but were no longer readily pay accessible. Indeed, a driver of the ATR in the first place was to have that info available, especially in a country rapidly growing in the sport where many refs didn’t have historical context. Shrug. (Now the iron triangle for “back pass” I do think they have all the blame for . . . .)
one
RefChat Addict
I think you just made up that spirit of the game to suite an opinion. IFAB does something similar with questions they can't justify an answer for
Your quote from the laws is about the type of restart and the location. It is not about if an act is an offence or not. With the 'new interpretation' the law is very clear the goalkepper has comitted an offence. The ball is in play and the goalkeeper has handled it outside the penalty area. Just because we can't determine the location and restart (due to the conflict the new interpretation has created) how is it we jump to the conclusion that it is not an offence at all?
"The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the spirit of the game and the Laws – this often involves asking the question, ‘what would football want/expect?’"I think you just made up that spirit of the game to suite an opinion. IFAB does something similar with questions they can't justify an answer for
Your quote from the laws is about the type of restart and the location. It is not about if an act is an offence or not. With the 'new interpretation' the law is very clear the goalkepper has comitted an offence. The ball is in play and the goalkeeper has handled it outside the penalty area. Just because we can't determine the location and restart (due to the conflict the new interpretation has created) how is it we jump to the conclusion that it is not an offence at all?
As I've pointed out, there is no direct provision in the Laws for this, so what does football expect? Football expects a goalkeeper to be able to use their hands there. Football certainly doesn't expect a goalkeeper to be penalised for handling a ball that is partly inside the penalty area and partly outside the FoP.
You can dislike the 'new interpretation' all you want, but I don't think you're daft enough to either ignore what IFAB have explicitly said, or to give a penalty for a goalkeeper handling the ball, which is what it sounds like you're trying to argue it would be...?