Advantage law- SPA

[Eddie]

Evening all,

Just thought I’d canvass opinion on the following scenario:

•Blue team breaks away in a counter attack 3v2.
•Red player attempts a sliding trip on halfway line (not reckless), on yellow player in possessionwhich causes him to stumble slightly, but remains on his feet and in possession.
•Advantage played, now 3v1.
•Play results in a corner approx 10 seconds later.

With the below in mind from this seasons IFAB laws of the game, what would you do next as referee

Replies appreciated.

Advantage

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.

 

[LothianRef]

I’d say no caution. You say it’s not a reckless challenge. I presume that means it’s careless, or stopping a promising attack. Either way under 2020/21 Laws that means no caution.

 

[Eddie]

I’d say no caution. You say it’s not a reckless challenge. I presume that means it’s careless, or stopping a promising attack. Either way under 2020/21 Laws that means no caution.

I seen it as an attempt to SPA.

 

[Justylove]

First, it sounds like right application of advantage.

If you've deemed the offence to be careless then you can't go back and caution for SPA based on this year's law change. However worth going back to the player who committed the foul and having a word.

 

[Eddie]

First, it sounds like right application of advantage.

If you've deemed the offence to be careless then you can't go back and caution for SPA based on this year's law change. However worth going back to the player who committed the foul and having a word.

Thanks justy,

100% right on the latter, I should’ve atleast had a word to satisfy (to a degree) the ‘fouled’ players questioning of the lack of punishment. I explained the law and he accepted it in fairness.

 

[LothianRef]

I seen it as an attempt to SPA.

Then you’re correct to not caution.
The opposite of that I suppose is what I had this afternoon - attacker was fouled recklessly but the ball fell to a teammate so I played advantage. I then came back and cautioned the defender at the next stop in play.

 

[one]

Sounds correct what you did. In situations like this make sure you verbalise your advantage to the extent that players in the next park can hear your call. It gives a big boost to your control of the afters.

From your description it sounds like the slide tackle was a (half hearted) attempt to play the ball, however if it was a clear cynical foul, like a prolonged shirt hold or a trip / attempted trip where he had absolutely no chance of getting the ball, then I'd go back to caution for lack of respect for the game (some may disagree with this). For clarity, this would have been a caution even if there was no promising attack.

 

[Eddie]

Sounds correct what you did. In situations like this make sure you verbalise your advantage to the extent that players in the next park can hear your call. It gives a big boost to your control of the afters.

From your description it sounds like the slide tackle was a (half hearted) attempt to play the ball, however if it was a clear cynical foul, like a prolonged shirt hold or a trip / attempted trip where he had absolutely no chance of getting the ball, then I'd go back to caution for lack of respect for the game (some may disagree with this). For clarity, this would have been a caution even if there was no promising attack.

Thanks one.

I’d say it was cynical but the ball wasn’t far away enough for it to be judged as a ‘no chance of getting it’. After it had happened and I played the advantage the first thing that popped into my head was the law in my original post. And thought I was completely correct in applying it.

I don’t think it’s helped me in hindsight as my assessor didn’t agree.

 

[JamesL]

For me, if you take out the SPA element would you caution it still? If the answer is yes then you go back and caution. If the answer is no, you don't.
That's the bit you have to sell to the observer.

 

[one]

I don’t think it’s helped me in hindsight as my assessor didn’t agree.

That should be a discussion between you and your assessor and you need to understand his reasoning as he does yours. Sometimes they say things hear what you have to respond. (And sometime, not often they are just wrong but one thing for sure though, he probably knows a thing or two more than others.)

I give an example. I had an informal assessment (a grading really, with a new league I started this year). The league does not have added time for the game I reffed and had unlimited interchange. The team leading by one was asking for a sub, within their right, in every stoppage leading up to full time. And on top, I had to caution one of their players for delaying the restart seconds before full time for a free kick 30 out into their area. I allowed the kick to be taken a few seconds after full time and blew full time about 15 seconds late. In debriefing assessor commented "even though you wanted to, our comp rules don't allow you to play added time". "But I did not play added time". "You did according to my watch". "(with a grin) I am the referee and the only time keeper for this game, and according to my watch I blew right on full time." He moved on to the next item. I suspect that is all he wanted to hear just in case if there is a report, I wont stuff up by trying to justify added time.

 

[socal lurker]

Leagues that compound banning added time with permitting unlimited subs create this problem of tactical delays through subs. IMHO, if you are going to ban adding time, you need to put limits on subs at the end of the game (at least giving the R the discretion to decline if, ITOOTR, the subs are being used to delay the game). Why create a rule set that encourages unsporting tactics?

 

[Kes]

The SPA-Advantage amendment was just another daft example of IFAB now complicating something that was fairly simple in the past. A stupidly needless caveat has been applied and now it makes a mockery of the whole thing ...

 

[Eddie]

For me, if you take out the SPA element would you caution it still? If the answer is yes then you go back and caution. If the answer is no, you don't.
That's the bit you have to sell to the observer.

Thanks James.

The answer is still no and I was still trying to sell it to my observer post-report, to no avail! He felt it was reckless because a degree of force was used. I disagree but we were at different angles, so he’s obviously seen it differently to me.

Unfortunately he marked me down for it on application of law and the overall match mark, despite it being the only thing I was picked up on and the written report being very positive.

I’m just hoping I get more than 3 observations this season so that it won’t effect my promotion chances (7-6).

 

[JamesL]

Thanks James.

The answer is still no and I was still trying to sell it to my observer post-report, to no avail! He felt it was reckless because a degree of force was used. I disagree but we were at different angles, so he’s obviously seen it differently to me.

Unfortunately he marked me down for it on application of law and the overall match mark, despite it being the only thing I was picked up on and the written report being very positive.

I’m just hoping I get more than 3 observations this season so that it won’t effect my promotion chances (7-6).

I am not sure a matter of opinion dispute sits well with me for a major dev.

What did you get overall? I would imagine, even with 1 major dev, you should still have got standard expected overall?

Good luck with your promotion.

 

[Eddie]

I am not sure a matter of opinion dispute sits well with me for a major dev.

What did you get overall? I would imagine, even with 1 major dev, you should still have got standard expected overall?

Good luck with your promotion.

Unfortunately not...’below standard’ which I still can’t get my head around. I know I had a good game (it wasn’t particularly challenging although it was competitive), both teams full of praise afterwards and the written report itself reflecting that, besides this one point.

Seeing the overall mark was a kick in the stomach knowing the possible impact it’ll have on my chances. Kind of left me wondering what the point was in my immediate reaction, but I’ve simmered down now .

 

[Kes]

Unfortunately not...’below standard’ which I still can’t get my head around. I know I had a good game (it wasn’t particularly challenging although it was competitive), both teams full of praise afterwards and the written report itself reflecting that, besides this one point.

Seeing the overall mark was a kick in the stomach knowing the possible impact it’ll have on my chances. Kind of left me wondering what the point was in my immediate reaction, but I’ve simmered down now .

Sounds to me like your observer is full of crap and at 7-6 isn't really doing his job. How old are they? What did he mark you down for - AOL?

If, as you say, the sliding challenge caused the player to stumble slightly but didn't bring them down and the "advantage" move was still able to develop, then I'm struggling to visualise how the challenge goes from careless to reckless.

Don't get too despondent about having a "below standard" on your first observation Eddie. You've still two more to gain at least "standard expected" or even counter it with an "above standard".

Every now and again, just like you get a "lemon" of a game, you get a "lemon" of an observer. Don't let it put you off.

 

[Eddie]

Sounds to me like your observer is full of crap and at 7-6 isn't really doing his job. How old are they? What did he mark you down for - AOL?

If, as you say, the sliding challenge caused the player to stumble slightly but didn't bring them down and the "advantage" move was still able to develop, then I'm struggling to visualise how the challenge goes from careless to reckless.

Don't get too despondent about having a "below standard" on your first observation Eddie. You've still two more to gain at least "standard expected" or even counter it with an "above standard".

Every now and again, just like you get a "lemon" of a game, you get a "lemon" of an observer. Don't let it put you off.

He’s retired. I was marked as below for AOL, at standard for match control and above for positioning and movement.

That was the thing kes, the fouled player still had enough balance to turn to me with his arms open wide- complaining, DURING the attack . He was the only one bothered about it after play had stopped, none of his teammates uttered a word, solidifying my view that there wasn’t much in it besides the SPA attempt. Even the report says it was a trip attempt.

It was my second assessment with the same observer. Got a standard last week after admittedly being too lenient for one challenge which I should’ve produced a yellow for. Even with that in mind I think each match should be judged on its own merits. I hope he wasn’t still judging me on last weeks error. I had a much better game this week.

Cheers for the advice. I couldn’t believe it when I got the report but if anything I’m as motivated as ever because of it. Not the end of the world!

 

[Kes]

It was my second assessment with the same observer. Got a standard last week after admittedly being too lenient for one challenge which I should’ve produced a yellow for. Even with that in mind I think each match should be judged on its own merits. I hope he wasn’t still judging me on last weeks error. I had a much better game this week.

Cheers for the advice. I couldn’t believe it when I got the report but if anything I’m as motivated as ever because of it. Not the end of the world!

Having the same observer again (for the same promotion level ie 7-6) isn't something that would happen with my County FA. For exactly the reasons you describe above.

If you're "borderline" as result of your 3 observations, you'll invariably find that they'll stipulate you undergo a 4th observation just to lift you up over the line or below as the case might be.

It annoys me when I read of plights like yours. Observations at 7-6 level are meant to be very basic, simple, and guide the referee with any development points. That's why there's only 3 competencies. Unless it was a blatantly obvious reckless challenge, then all he should be doing is discussing it with you in your post-match verbal debrief, accepting your opinion/explanation (having highlighted the fact that you may have got that one wrong) and moving on. That's just what I think though.

Good luck in your next one. Fingers crossed they don't give you "Grandad" again.

 

[Eddie]

Having the same observer again (for the same promotion level ie 7-6) isn't something that would happen with my County FA. For exactly the reasons you describe above.

If you're "borderline" as result of your 3 observations, you'll invariably find that they'll stipulate you undergo a 4th observation just to lift you up over the line or below as the case might be.

It annoys me when I read of plights like yours. Observations at 7-6 level are meant to be very basic, simple, and guide the referee with any development points. That's why there's only 3 competencies. Unless it was a blatantly obvious reckless challenge, then all he should be doing is discussing it with you in your post-match verbal debrief, accepting your opinion/explanation (having highlighted the fact that you may have got that one wrong) and moving on. That's just what I think though.

Good luck in your next one. Fingers crossed they don't give you "Grandad" again.

Haha thanks mate. The feedback was what I was looking forward to the most, so I had tangible areas I could improve on where required, to better myself. It hasn’t quite worked out that way.

A verbal dev point week 1 was to get closer to play. Week 2 he told me I was too close to play....you’ve got to love it!

 

[RustyRef]

He’s retired. I was marked as below for AOL, at standard for match control and above for positioning and movement.

That was the thing kes, the fouled player still had enough balance to turn to me with his arms open wide- complaining, DURING the attack . He was the only one bothered about it after play had stopped, none of his teammates uttered a word, solidifying my view that there wasn’t much in it besides the SPA attempt. Even the report says it was a trip attempt.

It was my second assessment with the same observer. Got a standard last week after admittedly being too lenient for one challenge which I should’ve produced a yellow for. Even with that in mind I think each match should be judged on its own merits. I hope he wasn’t still judging me on last weeks error. I had a much better game this week.

Cheers for the advice. I couldn’t believe it when I got the report but if anything I’m as motivated as ever because of it. Not the end of the world!

If you only got below standard in one competency, and standard expected and above standard in the others, I'm baffled as to how the overall grade can be below standard. There's no weighting applied to the three competencies, so BS + SE + AS should be SE overall.