A&H

Hackett watch - YATR

The Referee Store
I really do hate YATR, mainly because everyone who reads it remembers one completely ridiculous one and because you're a ref they'll expect you to know the answer.
 
If KH got this one correct then you can also play advantage in this scenario an allow the goal: Just before the ball is put through to a team-mate in an offside position an opponent fouls ANOTHER team-mate. the player in offside position received the ball and scores.

He is correct in saying you always punish the first offence but he failed to see that by playing advantage he did not actually punish the first offence.
 
Note that all of this came up in an incident in Germany earlier this year. Defender on the line handled to deny a goal, ball fell to player in offside position who put the ball in the goal.

Correct decision according to the authorities? Goal doesn't count, restart is penalty kick, red card to defender.

Decision in the game (which might be where KH is drawing his decision from): Goal, caution to defender.
 
wow, that's very wrong.You can't play advantage by allowing another foul. A foul doesn't meant advantage is permissible. You actually have no option to play advantage here, and must go to the foul.

Player fouled, loose ball goes to an offside teammate. Fairly common scenario, and the correct option is always to go back to the foul. That's different to playing advantage and the fouled player then chooses to pass it to that teammate.
 
What about number 2 in the strip of the OP. 'Losing control and storming off in protest' at the original decision sounds very much like dissent and a second yellow to me ... thoughts on that one?
 
I think it could be interpreted either way. Smart action from the manager trying to call it a sub. Assuming his actions prior to that weren't worthy of a second card, there's no reason not to go with the manager on that one.
 
If it can be interpreted either way then the one that helps match control is the way to go. In this instance sending the player off is going to cause a whole lot of unnecessary headache which can be avoided by just accepting the substitution which has a better outcome for everyone including yourself.
 
hmmm ive tried to think of ways that KH could be right with the offside, but it'd just be a free kick to the attacker lol
 
If it can be interpreted either way then the one that helps match control is the way to go. In this instance sending the player off is going to cause a whole lot of unnecessary headache which can be avoided by just accepting the substitution which has a better outcome for everyone including yourself.
Totally agree that IF you can find a way to interprete this in a way other than dissent, then allowing the substitution is a better way to go. Of course this is a made up scenario but I'm just struggling with how someone 'losing control and storming off' would be anything other than clear and obvious dissent by action ....
 
I'm obviously missing something judging by the prevailing opinion here. However my reading is thus:
...his marker barges him into an offside position

Ergo he was actually onside, and he has been forced offside by a foul, not by the marker/defender stepping up legitimately to play him off, and this is where the advantage came from. Had he not been fouled, he would not have ended up offside and play would continue anyway.

The only legitimate way to play an attacker offside is to step up. This is why a defender off the FOP behind the goal line is counted as being on the line for offside purposes - it prevents a sneaky step-off "'I'm not the last defender anymore" scenario.
 
@Tealeaf
You may have the opponents benefit by allowing play the continue after an infringement (definition of advantage). But you can not have a team to benefit from allowing play to continue if that same team infringed the laws of the game (even though the infringement was not their fault).

Here the attacker received the ball after infringing the offside law (yes not his fault but makes no difference). If you play advantage for the foul and move on to the next phase of play then you would have to penalise the attacker for offside. They should not benefit from playing from an offside position. The only solution here is to go back to the original foul.
 
I shall respectfully disagree on this one, and leave it at that. There have been too many threads recently that have degenerated into bun fights, so gentlemen, I give you the morning, and retire the field gracefully. :)
 
Respectfully disagree? With the LOTG?
Sorry tealeaf, there is no bun fight to be had.
You are 100% wrong in law and one's responce was nigh on perfect.
 
I'm obviously missing something judging by the prevailing opinion here. However my reading is thus:


Ergo he was actually onside, and he has been forced offside by a foul, not by the marker/defender stepping up legitimately to play him off, and this is where the advantage came from. Had he not been fouled, he would not have ended up offside and play would continue anyway.

The only legitimate way to play an attacker offside is to step up. This is why a defender off the FOP behind the goal line is counted as being on the line for offside purposes - it prevents a sneaky step-off "'I'm not the last defender anymore" scenario.

Offside doesn't require the attacker to have any intent, carelessness or other. It doesn't matter how or why he got in that position - all that matters is that he is in that position. The foul prior to him being offside doesn't mean the offside is negated - it's just that the offside means there can't be advantage. The fact that the foul put the player offside is completely irrelevant under the laws.
 
Back
Top