The Ref Stop

Advantage query

P

puddles15

New Member
Level 6 Referee
Here’s one I’d like an opinion on please team-

Attacking team with the ball on the corner of the box, and attacker is fouled. The ball breaks to another attacker with a great sight of goal, and I expect him to shoot - giving a shout of ‘advantage’.

However, instead of shooting (no idea why not) he passes sideways to third attacker but over hits the pass and move breaks down. Obviously they all come back to me wanting the FK for the original foul.

I could’ve waited a half second longer to see if the advantage materialises but the shot ‘should’ have been taken as the advantage - a better opportunity than the DFK outside the box from a worse angle, with a wall etc…

IMHO I’d say the advantage is the opportunity to shoot, not the fact you do/don’t take it, or do/don’t score etc. Perhaps a damned if you do, damned if you don’t one…
 
The Ref Stop
I assume on the corner of the box means just outside?

I'm giving a penalty there but probably not the free kick? Advantage should be a better chance than the FK that would have resulted from it really.
 
The question is whether the advantage ensued and was wasted or did it ensue. If, in your opinion, the opportunity the player had to shoot was a better opportunity than the FK would have been, then your advantage is correct, refgardless od the poor choice by the attacker. But if the FK would have been a better scoring opportunity than what the attacker had, then there was no advantage and the foul should be given. Sounds like you have it in the first bucket.
 
socal lurker said:
The question is whether the advantage ensued and was wasted or did it ensue. If, in your opinion, the opportunity the player had to shoot was a better opportunity than the FK would have been, then your advantage is correct, refgardless od the poor choice by the attacker. But if the FK would have been a better scoring opportunity than what the attacker had, then there was no advantage and the foul should be given. Sounds like you have it in the first bucket.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think that’s about the size of it. Very difficult to delay for a moment whilst assessing both situations in a couple of seconds but agree with the theory you said 👍
 
Mmm, I’m not so sure. First of all, what is the standard of football since if at the lower end of the scale, players are not always likely to hit the target and therefore, since the Advantage wasn’t realised (by a goal, save by the goalkeeper etc) and presumably within a few seconds, then it seems harsh to me to allow play to continue and not to stop the game and bring play back to the place of the original incident.
 
puddles15 said:
Here’s one I’d like an opinion on please team-

Attacking team with the ball on the corner of the box, and attacker is fouled. The ball breaks to another attacker with a great sight of goal, and I expect him to shoot - giving a shout of ‘advantage’.

However, instead of shooting (no idea why not) he passes sideways to third attacker but over hits the pass and move breaks down. Obviously they all come back to me wanting the FK for the original foul.

I could’ve waited a half second longer to see if the advantage materialises but the shot ‘should’ have been taken as the advantage - a better opportunity than the DFK outside the box from a worse angle, with a wall etc…

IMHO I’d say the advantage is the opportunity to shoot, not the fact you do/don’t take it, or do/don’t score etc. Perhaps a damned if you do, damned if you don’t one…
Click to expand...
The question for you and only you can answer that here is if the opportunity to shoot was better than a FK. Or in other words, if the team was given a choice at the time, would they have taken the shot or a FK?

If taking the shot was the clear answer then there was an advantage, it was given and spoiled. Move on.

If the taking the FK is the clear answer then you should have called the FK straight away. Shouting advantage was a mistake.

If there is no clear answer you should have waited half a second longer.

Hope my opinion here helps ☺️
 
Last edited:
one said:
I am thinking the foul was in the box so if you called it, it would have been a penalty. The question for you and only you can answer that here is if the opportunity to shoot was better than a penalty. Or in other words, if the team was given a choice at the time, would they have taken the shot or a penalty?

If taking the shot was the clear answer then there was an advantage, it was given and spoiled. Move on.

If the taking the penalty is the clear answer then you should have called the pen straight away. Shouting advantage was a mistake.

If there is no clear answer you should have waited half a second longer.

Hope my opinion here helps ☺️
Click to expand...
They have already said was outside the penalty area so I'd definitely not recommend awarding a penalty. 😛
 
I think we are losing the point here. The decision to play on cannot be changed, only reflected upon. As far as I am concerned, you gave the team the advantage, there was no need to stop the play to administer a sanction. So who is really at fault here? I think you need to take it easy on yourself. I don't think you can be held responsible for the aftermath of a decision you made entirely correct at the time, in according to the referee advice section in the LOTG:

The referee may play advantage whenever an offence occurs but should consider the following in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:


  • the severity of the offence – if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal
  • the position where the offence was committed – the closer to the opponent’s goal, the more effective the advantage can be
  • the chances of an immediate, promising attack
  • the atmosphere of the match
 
Sounds like you made the correct call. In your opinion the striker had a clear opportunity to shoot and you thought that was better than a FK on the edge of the area, with a wall in front of it and all the defenders back in position. What's people's opinions on saying nothing...letting it pan out...then bringing it back for the foul if they mess up the advantage ?
 
David G said:
Mmm, I’m not so sure. First of all, what is the standard of football since if at the lower end of the scale, players are not always likely to hit the target and therefore, since the Advantage wasn’t realised (by a goal, save by the goalkeeper etc) and presumably within a few seconds, then it seems harsh to me to allow play to continue and not to stop the game and bring play back to the place of the original incident.
Click to expand...
This is a philosophy I fundamentally disagree with. When training / coaching refs, the concept of fairness to both teams comes second only to that of player safety. And I can't square away why it's in any way fair on the defending team for the attackers to be given TWO attempts at goal simply because of a foul (one of the reasons I shake my head at the advantages played in rugby!). The attacking team should get the benefit of either the shot at goal (if it's a better opportunity than the FK) or the ceremonial FK. Unless, of course, the initial shot at goal was negatively impacted by the foul itself .. player off balance / stumbling etc,
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The query I posed and as you say yourself is whether or not the shooting opportunity is better than a ceremonial free kick and that’s where the standard of football and the skill of the Referee to determine which comes into play. There are no hard and fast rules, it’s often a feeling for the game and what’s happening at the time. However, there would have been hundreds of occasions when a Referee has brought play back to the place of the initial incident after a shot has gone wide etc. Some when the team wanted to play on and some when they didn’t.
 
David G said:
there would have been hundreds of occasions when a Referee has brought play back to the place of the initial incident after a shot has gone wide etc
Click to expand...
and if these were hundreds of occasions where the shot was negatively impacted by the foul, then I'm all good with it. It's where play is brought back purely because the shot is messed up for no good reason that I struggle. Two perfect 'bites at the cherry' is not what I believe the football advantage law intends
 
BCMilan said:
I prefer rugby's stance to be honest. I'm all for fairness to both teams, if neither are fouling people
Click to expand...
I think the point about fairness is not that a foul should not be punished. But that the punishment should fit the "crime". And allowing opponents to take two shots at goal for one careless foul for example is an over punishment of a foul and not justifiable by saying "if you don't want it, don't commit a foul".

Removing triple punishment for footballing foul DOGSO is a good example of how the powers that be placed a fair rebalancing of the game after a foul very high in the pecking order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top