DOGSO advantage

[CaptainsPlease]

Just because this is how they do it on the telly, doesn't mean we should be advising refs to do it at lower levels. Correct way as per the LotG is to signal advantage, and then blow for the offence if the advantage doesn't materialise within a few seconds.

It does not say this anywhere in the LotG. It says the referee 'allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team
will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds.'

It is talking about letting play continue to see if an advantage will ensue immediately or within a few seconds. It should only be signalled when it actually does. Otherwise we would be signalling advantage more or less whenever a team retains possession following a foul, which would be daft.

 

[OldNavyRef]

Can't agree with you on this one Old Navy (but do agree on the two bites of a cherry)

You should signal advantage immediately but are well within your rights to pull the game back to the foul if an advantage is not gained.

In my opinion, not signalling advantage and then pulling the game back makes it harder to communicate to players in the event a player doesn't gain an advantage or those stupid shouts of "wheres the advantage ref?". I find it much easier to explain that a player trying a worldy goal or throughball has in fact had an advantage.

As the good book advises:

The referee can wait a few seconds to allow a possible advantage to develop, and if the non-offending team does not benefit and gains no advantage, the original free kick can be given. However, the non-offending team should not be given two chances, e.g. a player is fouled but recovers and has a shot at goal; if the player does not score, the referee cannot go back and give a free kick for the original offence.

Need some answers from you here Ginge and @ARF !

Where does it say to signal advantage immediately or before the advantage has occurred? I come on this forum to get corrected so if I'm wrong, I hold my hands up, but that is not what I have been taught, and it seems made up, having re-read the LOTG before this to hopefully save myself from egg on my face.

Secondly on your LOTG quote at the bottom @The Ginger Ref waiting a few seconds is fine as you are waiting for the advantage to develop, but once you shout advantage or signal for an advantage, that means you have played advantage. According to some pedantic observers I have worked with in the past.

"The referee signals advantage by extending one or both arms forward at shoulder height"

Now to drop the usual caveats to let everyone know I am sane. Have I shouted advantage and pulled it back. Yes. Have I seen a foul and seen a player do something extremely dumb whilst off balance then pulled it back. Yes.

But an observer could give you a dev for both of those things is my understanding. So like most things, you can absolutely sell a lot of stuff at grassroots to everyone around you, but selling it to a rigid observer is harder.

 

[OldNavyRef]

The shot was greatly impacted by the tackle.

So people are saying don’t shout advantage and then bring it back and say no advantage free kick?

I am in the camp of only shout advantage + signal once you are happy an advantage has developed:

• there is a real benefit for the non-offending team
• no player is seriously injured
• there is no risk of a reaction or a confrontation

However, plenty of traffic on this one. So standby for me to be corrected.

Advantage | IFAB

Advantage

www.footballrules.com

 

[socal lurker]

The Laws don’t say which of two models is correct. Model 1 is to immediately signal advantage, and to come back if the advantage does not ensue. Model 2 is to wait until the advantage ensues before signaling. There are advantages and disadvantages of both. many referees pick one way of doing it. IMHO, there is no reason not to be flexible. If it’s a hard foul and you want the players to know you saw it so no one retaliates, then a quick, loud advantage does that. And if it doesn’t ensue, bring it back and explain that the advantage wasn’t actually there so it comes back. In less confrontational situations, the pause to see if it ensues before signaling, to me, seems better.

Side note on history. It used to be that there was no going back—a ref was supposed to decide immediately, and he was wrong, too bad. This led to slow whistles rather than applying advantage. The change in the Law, somewhat, captured what refs were already doing to allow more time to see if there really was an advantage, which also meant refs could take risks where there might be, but it was hard to tell right away.

 

[Peter Grove]

Side note on history. It used to be that there was no going back—a ref was supposed to decide immediately, and he was wrong, too bad. This led to slow whistles rather than applying advantage. The change in the Law, somewhat, captured what refs were already doing to allow more time to see if there really was an advantage, which also meant refs could take risks where there might be, but it was hard to tell right away.

Correct - and for those interested in the history of this, it actually came about in two stages.

First of all, in 1996 it changed from no going back whatsoever, to the referee being allowed to go back and penalise the original offence if the advantage did not develop, "at that time." However the way it was applied saw referees only ever allowing a very short amount of time, before deciding whether to go back on the advantage (no more a second or two, usually).





Then, in 2007 there was talk about allowing refs to wait a bit longer to see if the advantage would accrue, and new wording was put in the Additional Guidelines section saying that the referee could allow a "few" seconds, before deciding whether to penalise the original offence. Although that didn't sound like a massive difference to some people (me for instance) in practice it did mean that referees started waiting a good bit longer before deciding.

 

[Big Cat]

Just don't play any advantage unless there's an OGSO to keep the observers happy and then take pelters for not doing so, as I unfortunately copped several times on Saturday for implementing the misguided development advice
The only two models one needs to learn, are the observer's creed and the club marks creed. The latter winning hands down as the best approach
Unbelievable Jeff