Advantage

[richard ramjane]

It would all depend on the specific scenario at the time.

As with any decision that I am looking for the referee to clarify, I would ask them to talk me through their thought process for that decision. What was said would shape my response.

ok thats fair enough... i think certain people on here may seem to think that your opinion comes across as , right... no advantage in any situation at so and so level... full stop.. underlined and in bold... which isnt the case

 

[GraemeS]

Absolute rubbish. Players rarely appreciate it but they will accept it because they will be shouting at you for the FK before you've even blown to pull it back.

If it's an attempted advantage....it's not really an advantage.....it's "hmmmm might be, might not be, lets wait and see....." Then you are in the territory of having to make a decision about whether to pull it back or not if it turns out to be "not"......if you do pull it back, the opposition will moan because they will, obviously, want you to have decided that advantage has accrued and been wasted.....if you don't pull it back, the advantaged team will moan because "where was the advantage in that ref" or "we'll have the FK then ref".
Whichever way you go with it, no matter how correct you are, it will chip away at your match control.....play too many "advantages" like that, with the "wrong" type of team and things can get out of control quite quickly.

Yes, the more experience you get, the higher up the pyramid you officiate will all change how you use advantage, but for inexperienced colleagues it is a very bad idea to play unnecessary and dubious "advantages" just because "the players want it" or because they have been led to believe that referees have to play advantage.

Again, I've never found this as difficult as you seem to be making out it is. And I also don't think that attempting to play advantage where possible stops me from clamping down on it when a team is being a bunch of ****ers. But I don't go in to a match with that assumption, I go in with an aim to let a football match flow where possible and then pull it back if players push their luck.

 

[Padfoot]

ok thats fair enough... i think certain people on here may seem to think that your opinion comes across as , right... no advantage in any situation at so and so level... full stop.. underlined and in bold... which isnt the case

Have never said that.....have always qualified it by stating that as you progress up the pyramid the use of advantage can be relaxed as you tend to be dealing with players that are able to use a genuine advantage opportunity to their benefit.

Again, I've never found this as difficult as you seem to be making out it is. And I also don't think that attempting to play advantage where possible stops me from clamping down on it when a team is being a bunch of ****ers. But I don't go in to a match with that assumption, I go in with an aim to let a football match flow where possible and then pull it back if players push their luck.

So, you go in to a match looking to play as much advantage as possible to keep the game flowing......which is the trap that many refs fall into. You shouldn't have to "look" for an advantage...if you have to stop and think about whether it is, the chances are that it isn't.....it's just your mindset trying to justify "keeping the game flowing" by convincing yourself there's an advantage.

 

[Tino Best]

I do mainly youth and in my first season I think I gave 5 advantages 3 of which broke down and I pulled back for a FK. 2 resulted in goal scoring chances. Most of the time I can't see any real advantage so I do whistle and give the FK. The advantages I have given are all based on gut feelings that it is the right thing to do. I think a lot of us referee on instinct and the more experienced you are your instincts are more finely tuned.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Either way we can’t win, you give a FK they wanted the potential advantage, you allow advantage and another player on the same team wanted the FK...I tend not to play advantages unless they are blatantly obvious as, as others have said, chances are the Dog and Duck ain’t that good anyway... and a fk is potentially a better outcome to lump it in the mixer...

 

[Russell Jones]

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

Whilst this is obviously a very nuanced discussion, I'd like to provide some balance regarding the overall views of Observers on this issue.

In each of the last three seasons, as I've been going from 7 to 4, I've been positively picked up by Observers on the (selective but fairly frequent) way in which I apply Advantage. It's actually been one of the most consistent themes in my Observations, whether the overall report has been good or bad!

So, whilst I agree that it is easy and potentially dangerous to overuse Advantage (especially at grassroots level) it's also entirely possible to enhance the players' enjoyment of the game AND to please many Observers by choiceful application .....

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Wow! You've been reffing a whole season.....I'll bow to your vast experience and knowledge then!

Sorry to burst your little self congratutory bubble......you got lucky.

Oh drop the condescension. You're not impressing anybody.

Advantage doesn't come up a lot. 1 or 2 a game is typical at most. Sometimes the manner of the game is such that you have have quite a few more. Quite a few games I don't have any. A player fouled around the middle of the field with retained control 30 yards of open space of him, and the fouling player on the ground is a great advantage scenario. You seem to confuse 'opportunity' with 'outcome'.

If you think a lot of referees these days try too hard to find advantage than that's your experience. Given your perspective on here I can only wonder what you would actually consider to be an attained advantage and whether you've been incorrectly marking down referees all this time.

I'd rather encourage referees to maintain sufficient situational awareness to know what 'opportunity' means, rather than categorically tell referees 'nah, you're going to be too crap at advantage so don't develop your skill, you're better off just not bothering with it'.

Advantage DOES have a lot of misunderstanding- and not just amongst players either.

If somebody has a clear advantage in the middle of the field - heck, even in their defensive half and you don't award the advantage then you will cop flak for it. Don't try and tell people they won't. NOT applying advantage when needed can be just as harmful to a team - and result in just as much abuse - as incorrectly applying advantage.

It's a mistake to think that "scoring a goal" is the only outcome from advantage.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

He also took risks that were unnecessary and could've gone in a very different direction.

No, he really didn't. It's increasingly sounding like you've been incorrectly marking down referees for doing the right thing.

In reality, an "advantage" on the halfway line rarely leads directly to a goal

No kidding. and how often do you see a FK on the halfway line lead directly to a goal? So, your point is not only irrelevant - but I'd incorrect, given that advantage here is more likely to lead to a goal from this part of the field than a free kick is! And even if it doesn't, it's a good opportunity to attack and gain significant field position. THAT is advantage.

 

[one]

Law 5

Advantage
• allows play to continue when an infringement or offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage

When one considers the ability of players, its not just for what do they do with it if I play advantage, its also for what do they do with it if I gave a free kick.
Consider every case on its merits, grassroots or otherwise, if the team benefits from allowing play to continue rather than a free kick then play advantage. Player ability must be a consideration not a determination.

 

[Padfoot]

Oh drop the condescension. You're not impressing anybody.

Advantage doesn't come up a lot. 1 or 2 a game is typical at most. Sometimes the manner of the game is such that you have have quite a few more. Quite a few games I don't have any. A player fouled around the middle of the field with retained control 30 yards of open space of him, and the fouling player on the ground is a great advantage scenario. You seem to confuse 'opportunity' with 'outcome'.

If you think a lot of referees these days try too hard to find advantage than that's your experience. Given your perspective on here I can only wonder what you would actually consider to be an attained advantage and whether you've been incorrectly marking down referees all this time.

I'd rather encourage referees to maintain sufficient situational awareness to know what 'opportunity' means, rather than categorically tell referees 'nah, you're going to be too crap at advantage so don't develop your skill, you're better off just not bothering with it'.

Advantage DOES have a lot of misunderstanding- and not just amongst players either.

If somebody has a clear advantage in the middle of the field - heck, even in their defensive half and you don't award the advantage then you will cop flak for it. Don't try and tell people they won't. NOT applying advantage when needed can be just as harmful to a team - and result in just as much abuse - as incorrectly applying advantage.

It's a mistake to think that "scoring a goal" is the only outcome from advantage.

Read your own post!

If advantage doesn't come up a lot....with 1 or 2 being typical per game......and yet I regularly see referees trying to play advantage 4 or 5 times a game, double the "typical" amount, doesn't that suggest that these referees are trying too hard to find "advantages"? Which is precisely my whole point.
Which, for the hard of understanding, is that genuine advantages occur infrequently, and for inexperienced colleagues (especially those seeking promotion) it is better to play "safe" unless they are literally about to slot it into an empty net, until they have the experience to make the best use of those few genuine advantages that occur. Also, by and large, the skill level of players at grassroots means that they will benefit more from the FK than they will the chance to make a mazy 40 yd run.

Clearly you have little experience of observing referees, at least under the current system, so forgive me if i treat your opinion on my observing ability with the disdain it deserves.

No, he really didn't. It's increasingly sounding like you've been incorrectly marking down referees for doing the right thing.


No kidding. and how often do you see a FK on the halfway line lead directly to a goal? So, your point is not only irrelevant - but I'd incorrect, given that advantage here is more likely to lead to a goal from this part of the field than a free kick is! And even if it doesn't, it's a good opportunity to attack and gain significant field position. THAT is advantage.

How often do I see a Sunday team lump the ball into a crowded PA and one of their large centre backs head it goalwards? Far more often than I see them score from a advantage in the middle third of the pitch!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I also would class advatage to be like a player. If in the game things are going well for the player/team, control of the game, comfortable and can afford to take a calculated chance, instead of the seemingly simplier five yard pass, he might suddenly Cryuf turn and fire a 40 yard effort which comes crashing back off the bar. Nobody is gonna argue that the player was right to try something a bit risky!
Same for referee, take stock of the surroundings, give yourself that time to go, hey, you know what, lets do this. Far rather that than giving an already medicore game no opportunity to flourish.

 

[Padfoot]

I also would class advatage to be like a player. If in the game things are going well for the player/team, control of the game, comfortable and can afford to take a calculated chance, instead of the seemingly simplier five yard pass, he might suddenly Cryuf turn and fire a 40 yard effort which comes crashing back off the bar. Nobody is gonna argue that the player was right to try something a bit risky!
Same for referee, take stock of the surroundings, give yourself that time to go, hey, you know what, lets do this. Far rather that than giving an already medicore game no opportunity to flourish.

Of course, his team mates might be pissed off at him for not making the simple 5 yd pass that could have led to a goal, rather than trying to showboat which resulted in.....nothing.

If you're "taking a risk" in trying to play an "advantage"....it's not an advantage.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

yes and playing the simple pass could mean the guy he passes it to loses the ball
You cant referee a game based on hypothetical outcomes.
Advantage is in the laws of the game, it allows you the chance to control a game. Simple awarding of free kicks is not refereeing. Its foul detection.
People take a risk everytime they leave the front door, jump into a car, sign a HP agreement, its life. Speculate to accumulate
Or just sit there rubbishing everything that could make good things even better

 

[Padfoot]

yes and playing the simple pass could mean the guy he passes it to loses the ball
You cant referee a game based on hypothetical outcomes.
Advantage is in the laws of the game, it allows you the chance to control a game. Simple awarding of free kicks is not refereeing. Its foul detection.
People take a risk everytime they leave the front door, jump into a car, sign a HP agreement, its life. Speculate to accumulate
Or just sit there rubbishing everything that could make good things even better

So you're happy to gamble on dubious advantages that could cost you match control, observer marks and utimately promotion?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

PLay one advantage as such that does not work out, i say, ah well
Play the one that leads to the only goal, i say, bravo

Each to own

 

[Padfoot]

PLay one advantage as such that does not work out, i say, ah well
Play the one that leads to the only goal, i say, bravo

Each to own

Not really an answer to the question.......

 

[Ciley Myrus]

It was.....

Maybe if your narrow mind was open you would comprehend...

 

[GraemeS]

So you're happy to gamble on dubious advantages that could cost you match control, observer marks and utimately promotion?

That's a misleading and slightly irrelevant question.

If that was the guaranteed outcome, of course I wouldn't do that. But good use of advantage is part of the promotion critera for 6-5 and above. So yes, I am prepared to trust that I'm capable of using advantage in the correct situation to improve the match. Because I'm absolutely required to do so if I want to progress. And going out there saying "No advantage ever!" is going to lose me marks as well if I miss an obvious opportunity to use it.

 

[Padfoot]

That's a misleading and slightly irrelevant question.

If that was the guaranteed outcome, of course I wouldn't do that. But good use of advantage is part of the promotion critera for 6-5 and above. So yes, I am prepared to trust that I'm capable of using advantage in the correct situation to improve the match. Because I'm absolutely required to do so if I want to progress.

"Good use" does not mean playing risky dubious advantages hoping that they come off, where, even if it does, the decision to try the "advantage" presents a potential risk to your match control. The fact that your gamble might pay off is largely irrelevant, it's about your decision making process to take that gamble in the first place.

Its the mindset that "I have to play advantage..."....."good use" can also be choosing not to use it.....I can give you examples of referees being observed who have chosen not to play an "advantage" that has led to players frustration....when questioned on debrief about his decision not to play it, they explained it was marginal at best, middle third of the pitch and the ability of the players meant they benefitted more from the FK.....likewise I can give you examples of referees who have played that marginal advantage, the team wasted it, wanted it pulled back, didn't get it (correctly) and the protests led to a dissent caution.....guess which referee lost marks?

It's about not taking unnecessary risks......

 

[GraemeS]

"Good use" does not mean playing risky dubious advantages hoping that they come off, where, even if it does, the decision to try the "advantage" presents a potential risk to your match control. The fact that your gamble might pay off is largely irrelevant, it's about your decision making process to take that gamble in the first place.

Its the mindset that "I have to play advantage..."....."good use" can also be choosing not to use it.....I can give you examples of referees being observed who have chosen not to play an "advantage" that has led to players frustration....when questioned on debrief about his decision not to play it, they explained it was marginal at best, middle third of the pitch and the ability of the players meant they benefitted more from the FK.....likewise I can give you examples of referees who have played that marginal advantage, the team wasted it, wanted it pulled back, didn't get it (correctly) and the protests led to a dissent caution.....guess which referee lost marks?

It's about not taking unnecessary risks......

Exactly, it's about playing advantage where appropriate. Which is 100% different to your previous attitude of "Players at grassroots can't use advantage properly, so I should never do it".

If I go out there planning to never play advantage, the day will come where I miss an advantage I should play. You say that happens once or twice a season, I say I'm surprised if it doesn't happen once or twice a match, but that's an irrelevant detail. If I say no advantages, I'll eventually miss one in front of an observer - and "I don't play advantage because these players are ****" is not an answer that I think will go down well.