Advantage from Sunday?

[HoofItYouDonkey]

1. Red v Blue. Red fouls blue, ball goes free, another blue player gets the loose ball, I shout "Advantage, play on" with appropriate signal. He knocks it, first time, forward to a blue forward who is offside. Take the offside IDFK to red, or come back to the original foul and give a DFK to blue? I took the IDFK to red for the offside. Right or wrong?

 

[Kes]

Personally, based on how you describe it ie the blue player struck the pass first time and the offside was clear, I'd have brought it back and said "Okay, back we come guys, no advantage there". But that's me. Others may disagree.

 

[Danny1988]

I think it depends on timing, by the sounds of this it was straight away so id of brought it back

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

Comments noted. My thinking was if I play advantage and a player kicks it straight to an opponent or kicks it off, bad luck, play on. I could not see the difference to him passing it to someone offside.

 

[Viking]

For the exact opposite view, my local FL AR presented a session recently in which he was absolute in saying that is having two bites of the cherry and therefore he'd give idfk for the offside.

I'd lean more towards bringing it back for no advantage.

 

[Justylove]

For the exact opposite view, my local FL AR presented a session recently in which he was absolute in saying that is having two bites of the cherry and therefore he'd give idfk for the offside.

I'd lean more towards bringing it back for no advantage.

This is where you need to be confident and sell your decision, whichever way you go.

 

[deusex]

All that matters is was the team in a better positon BEFORE the pass than a FK would have provided.
If yes, OFFSIDE. It's exactly the same as if the player slices it out for a throw in, not your fault.
If no, bring it back and just give the free kick next time (we all play advanateg too much in fairness, to keep the game going)

Also remember possession IS NOT advantage

 

[socal lurker]

I’d say “it depends.”

The question is whether there was in fact an advantage (i.e., an opportunity better than the FK that would have been awarded).

Here, we need to know what the “advantage” was. If the “advantage” that the R saw was the ability to pass through to that player, who turned out to be OS, then the advantage never came about. But if the player who received the ball had an opening to run with the ball (the advantage) and squandered it by making a bad choice, too bad for him.

We go back because, once we have all the facts, the advantage was not ther. We don’t go back to save players from their mistakes (miskicks or mental errors).

 

[one]

Once you shouted "Advantage" you have told everyone the attackers are now in a better position than if I had given them a free kick. If you were not sure of that then you should have either waited a little longer or you should have given the free kick. Let's say you were sure of it and that is what you shouted "advantage".

When you bring it back for the IFK, you are saying in effect I am giving the attackers a second chance because even though they had good control and a good opportunity to make something of it, they made the wrong choice. This is the same as penalising the defenders a second time for the one offence.

 

[socal lurker]

Once you shouted "Advantage" you have told everyone the attackers are now in a better position than if I had given them a free kick. If you were not sure of that then you should have either waited a little longer or you should have given the free kick. Let's say you were sure of it and that is what you shouted "advantage".

When you bring it back for the IFK, you are saying in effect I am giving the attackers a second chance because even though they had good control and a good opportunity to make something of it, they made the wrong choice. This is the same as penalising the defenders a second time for the one offence.

Disagree. It used to be that the R had to make a static advantage decision and once made it was made. But that changed. The new language says “and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds.” So the R is entitled to play the advantage, but go back if the anticipated advantage does not ensue. This isn’t so much of a second bite, as allowing Rs to think there is a likely advantage, and realize they were wrong because the anticipated advantage was never actually there.“ But I agree that we should never be going back if the R recognizes an advantage that was there, and the player fluffed it by a bad play or a bad decision.

And that analysis is separate from the question of when to signal. I’ve never seen a resolution of the best practice. Option 1 is to signal right away, and go back if it does not ensue. Option 2 is to wait until it ensues. There are arguments in favor of each, thought 2 seems to mostly carry the day. (I usually use 2; but I will use 1 when I think it is important to immediately show my awareness of the foul to avoid escalation/retaliation.)

 

[one]

It all comes down to interpretation. Note the word 'anticipated' in your quote. Also note the bit that comes before the part you quoted: "allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage". The assertion of "will benefit" is past the stage of anticipation and that is when you play advantage.

As for signalling, again open to debate, the consistent approach with all other signals is to signal what you have decided not what you are about to decide.

I would advise to be consistent on your options and use one or there other (don't mix them). It could create dissent if you go back on one occasion and later in the game the opponents want you to go back and you don't. Obviously I always go option 2 and use my voice to show my awareness and intention. Something like "saw that".

 

[Viking]

Once you shouted "Advantage" you have told everyone the attackers are now in a better position than if I had given them a free kick. If you were not sure of that then you should have either waited a little longer or you should have given the free kick. Let's say you were sure of it and that is what you shouted "advantage".

When you bring it back for the IFK, you are saying in effect I am giving the attackers a second chance because even though they had good control and a good opportunity to make something of it, they made the wrong choice. This is the same as penalising the defenders a second time for the one offence.

Refs appear to be taught differently around the country/world. My daughter recently went through the course and the RDO taught her to shout advantage loudly to communicate to all that she'd seen the foul. Then, if she felt no advantage had occurred within a few seconds, she'd bring it back for the foul.

 

[Kes]

When you bring it back for the IFK, you are saying in effect I am giving the attackers a second chance because even though they had good control and a good opportunity to make something of it, they made the wrong choice. This is the same as penalising the defenders a second time for the one offence.

Possibly could agree the first part about giving the attacker a second chance but the second part no way mate.

Playing advantage is purely allowing the team offended against to pursue what you deem to be a beneficial situation. It's got nothing to do with the defending team. If you play advantage and the attacking team goes up the field and scores then it's handshakes and back-slapping all round in refereeing terms - but you still haven't penalised the defending team for the foul have you? You therefore can't say that bringing it back after shouting advantage is penalising them a second time.

 

[RobOda]

1. Red v Blue. Red fouls blue, ball goes free, another blue player gets the loose ball, I shout "Advantage, play on" with appropriate signal. He knocks it, first time, forward to a blue forward who is offside. Take the offside IDFK to red, or come back to the original foul and give a DFK to blue? I took the IDFK to red for the offside. Right or wrong?

I would say 'correct', but I suspect this is a YHTBT moment, I've done it both ways, I think the key factor here is that the player's done a first time pass, so you can easily bring it back, whereas if he took possession and then hung around for a touch or three before launching his pass you wouldn't have a case at all.

 

[Big Cat]

Advantage is an art, not a science. In my experience, the referee goes unnoticed when it leads to a goal, whilst a player in possession seldom wants the FK.
Obviously, application is regionalized and taught inconsistently according to level. Of course it is; its football!

 

[one]

Possibly could agree the first part about giving the attacker a second chance but the second part no way mate.

Playing advantage is purely allowing the team offended against to pursue what you deem to be a beneficial situation. It's got nothing to do with the defending team. If you play advantage and the attacking team goes up the field and scores then it's handshakes and back-slapping all round in refereeing terms - but you still haven't penalised the defending team for the foul have you? You therefore can't say that bringing it back after shouting advantage is penalising them a second time.

You took the second part too literally and can see why you have. If you give the attacking team two chances then you have tilted the balance of fairness too far in favour of the attacking team, i.e., being unfair to the defending team, in those terms it is similar to penalising the defending team twice. Not literally but in the way that it is unfair to them.

 

[one]

Refs appear to be taught differently around the country/world. My daughter recently went through the course and the RDO taught her to shout advantage loudly to communicate to all that she'd seen the foul. Then, if she felt no advantage had occurred within a few seconds, she'd bring it back for the foul.

Yeah we have had that discussion on this forum before. I don't like that way of teaching for reasons I explained in my previous posts. But at least it is consistent then, players know what to expect and it is not confusing for them.

 

[JamesL]

This is one where wait and see is appropriate.
I don't agree that this is two bites at the cherry because to me it sounds like the advantage didn't exist in the first place. If the only option for the player was to pass to a team mate in an offside position.
At FL this probably is an offside as th e expectation is retention of posession is advantage.
At grassroots posession is not enough, the advantage should be more beneficial than a free kick. In this scenario, it sounds like that wasn't the case

 

[lincs22]

And that analysis is separate from the question of when to signal. I’ve never seen a resolution of the best practice. Option 1 is to signal right away, and go back if it does not ensue. Option 2 is to wait until it ensues. There are arguments in favour of each, thought 2 seems to mostly carry the day. (I usually use 2; but I will use 1 when I think it is important to immediately show my awareness of the foul to avoid escalation/retaliation.)

At Grassroots football in England, the expectation is to signal early and then pull play back, if the advantage does not accrue. The early signal ensures that the players are aware that you are applying advantage and that you have seen the infringement - thus minimising potential "afters". The attackers can then use the ball without fear of losing the potential free-kick. At higher levels, the practice is to signal after the advantage has occurred.

But back to the original post - @HoofItYouDonkey - in the instance described, I think that the IDFK should be given for the offside. The attacking team has lost the advantage by passing to an offside player.

 

[Kes]

If you give the attacking team two chances then you have tilted the balance of fairness too far in favour of the attacking team, i.e., being unfair to the defending team, in those terms it is similar to penalising the defending team twice. Not literally but in the way that it is unfair to them.

Still don't agree.
At the end of the day, an offence has been committed. Why should the offending team get away with it because of a (potentially) naff advantage call by the ref? Like I said, if it's a good advantage and a promising attack or even a goal develops from it then you've allowed the offence to go unpunished in the interests of attacking football (not withstanding that you might still go back and caution the offender if the challenge was reckless) but nobody minds. The advantage you play, is an award to the attacking team as such, it's not penalising the offending team in anyway, and as such it's not then "unfair" to come back for the original FK. Not for me anyway. I understand what you're saying, but I think it's wrong.