Ref ends up getting this 100% correct too. White gets the FK and red gets a caution for SPA when he gets up from rolling. Too bad the attacker lost his head.
La Liga 2...when the ref tries to play advantage
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
Ref ends up getting this 100% correct too. White gets the FK and red gets a caution for SPA when he gets up from rolling. Too bad the attacker lost his head.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
I love how the player who was kicked actually stops in his run and turns to him before the lightbulb comes on and he throws himself to the ground to roll around.
But agree, all decisions correct.
But agree, all decisions correct.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Imagine if the referee would have also given the defender a second yellow (in addition to the SPA yellow) for simulation.
In all seriousness, the referee called this correctly. It's not his fault the attacker had a major red mist moment.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Poor from the referee, what he tries to do here is play on. There is no advantage.
Advantage is when to allow play to continue is more beneficial than awarding a fk would be.
Its on the half way line, direction of play is sideways plus another opponent is 4/5 yards away and about to intervene, That is not advantage by any stretch of the imagination. Its a play on, Two very different things. What we see here is merely ball retention.
The main worry on holding offences is usually the held reacting with their arms, in a desperate bid to unfree themselves from their newly found bondage.
No doubts the kick out is a red
Even less doubt the referees poor recongnition of , advantage, over, retention, has vastly contributed to the affair.
Advantage is when to allow play to continue is more beneficial than awarding a fk would be.
Its on the half way line, direction of play is sideways plus another opponent is 4/5 yards away and about to intervene, That is not advantage by any stretch of the imagination. Its a play on, Two very different things. What we see here is merely ball retention.
The main worry on holding offences is usually the held reacting with their arms, in a desperate bid to unfree themselves from their newly found bondage.
No doubts the kick out is a red
Even less doubt the referees poor recongnition of , advantage, over, retention, has vastly contributed to the affair.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I think there's very good advice in your post for the vast majority of referees at the vast majority of levels. Often times a free kick on halfway, with the opportunity to play it long into the penalty area, is more advantageous than simply playing on.
At the highest levels (as I'm sure you're personally aware), where the spectacle is all important, it's accepted practice to play "Advantage" in a much wider variety of situations, in an effort to keep the game flowing and the spectacle enjoyable. I don't believe the referee in this clip has done anything different to what his colleagues would have done .. and been expected to do (rightly or wrongly).
Anubis
RefChat Addict
The position on the pitch is one concern, the other, is the other opponents proximity
Had he not been on the scene, absolutely we can ( play on/advantage), whichever one we opt for
There waa three risks for me here, one, the location was amber zone, so, I be inclining more stop than go
Two, the impending other opponent.
Three, at holding, we need be aware of the held attempting by any means to break free
the balls also going sideways, at no pace
I just dont see the playing on, to be more beneficial here than *safe?* refereeing of, foul.
suppose the defining factor would be asking the referee today, do you wish on reflection you had simply given the fk,
I know if was me, I be watching the clip going, yip, i really should have.
Last edited:
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'd guess the ref is thinking .. great, I did exactly what my employers ask me to do in order to keep the game flowing. And then a player was stupid enough to give me an easy VC red card so my mark has rocketed upwards
Anubis
RefChat Addict
I'd guess the ref is thinking .. great, I did exactly what my employers ask me to do in order to keep the game flowing. And then a player was stupid enough to give me an easy VC red card so my mark has rocketed upwards
There is that yes......
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
While that is probably not a play most of us need to wait on a the levels we do, at the professional level I think it was fully appropriate for the R to have a patient whistle to see if the attacker was going to be able to turn the corner and create an advantageous situation. The R did not play advantage, he waited to see if he should play advantage. This was not a long delay between the foul and the retaliation. And at that level, a player not having a brain freeze knows that is what is happening. The R has zero blame on this.
one
RefChat Addict
Agreed as long as we also agree that as you mentioned level of the game is key here. At grassroots I expect a quick whistle here and at least a talking to to the defender.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
The ref has complete blame, simply stop the game on the foul, case closed.
The thread is titled, advantage, hence my reference to it.
There was nothing to be gained by playing this on/advantage.
The tried and tested traffic light system comes into play here.
Red being no, no can do
Orange being, oh, toss a coin, maybe can go, maybe should stop
Green being, we are good to go
This is amber, and when you drive an amber, there is, either by your actions, or someone elses, an element of risk. If you drive an amber and find yourself then taking evasive sudden action, or, worse, thats the gamble you took.
Ball is halfway, no pace on it, going sideways, another opponent is 4 yards away, nothing to be gained by playing on, Perp, foul, defender watch your hands, the end
Prevention, is better than the cure.
Last edited:
Anubis
RefChat Addict
What I do see is the thread title, ' advantage'
The ref, as pointed out by other posters, is not trying to play advantage here. He is merely allowing play to continue. A greater understanding of the correct definition of afvantage would benefit the thread title.
as referees we need to think ahead, proactivity, cover as many angles as we can, and, as shown in this clip, we cannot ever account for everything.
Its beyond doubt had he stopped the game, we dont get the kick out.
there are two reasons we get the kick out, one, because the foued player ( lets not lose sight of the fact he was fouled and is entitled to his freekick), haa a red mist moment, and two, because the referee ( that small matter of him being in control of the game) is the one responsible for not awarding said freekick.
We often read ( have seen it on here) that refereeing is like conducting the orchestra or riding a fresh horse, we control the tempo, the pace, the fluidity, we tell it whsn to stop, when to go, when to speed into the open pastures as there are no hazards... We cant apply to that logic on one hand yet on the other abolish the referee from all responsibilty here,
the ref stops things, we have no situation
the ref does not stop things, we open pandoras box. What happens next is no longer in our control, but, in the players. And, the uptopia of refereeing is that, the referee retains control.
Macca
Active Member
The referee is blameless in this situation. He tries to let the game continue and he can see if the attacker gets an advantage in the next few seconds. If no advantage materialises, he can bring it back for the foul. Simple. In the video, just before the attacker kicks out, there is still opportunity to continue to break with the ball which may be more advantageous than a freekick from the halfway when the defending team can get organised.
If the referee blew the whistle immediately on first contact of the hold, the attacker may have complained believing there was an opportunity to continue the attack.
Basing only on this small video snippet, it is not possible to talk about match control. The holding on the attacker may have been an isolated incident. That's a strawman.
If the referee blew the whistle immediately on first contact of the hold, the attacker may have complained believing there was an opportunity to continue the attack.
Basing only on this small video snippet, it is not possible to talk about match control. The holding on the attacker may have been an isolated incident. That's a strawman.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
" may have been" already nullifies advantage, which is based on ' is more beneficial"
may have, indicates risk. Ref took a risk, it backfired.
Btw, am prob playing on here real time too. Meaning that I also would be culpable for what happens next. By reviewing these match incidents we strive to improve, what was done well, what could have been better etc.
the ref should be in control, what we see here is a player assuming control.
What the referee did (hesitating for a split second to see if the fouled player was going to be released and get the chance to play a dangerous pass) is 100% the correct thing to do at this level. He didn't "play advantage", but he did sensibly hold the whistle for a moment to see if the advantage was going to happen. You can't control for players losing their heads and doing something stupid like that.
At grassroots, I would still argue that you should be looking to do this if possible. There may be odd games where it's been super spicy and you should hit the whistle as quickly as you can, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Players want advantage most of the time, and playing a good advantage is one of the best ways of showing empathy for the game and getting players on your side.
As the kick occurs we see the white #5 come into shot in acres of space on the left wing - it may not have resulted in a productive advantage, but allowing play to continue, the ball to get to that #5 and then going back and cautioning the red midfielder after would have been an ideal outcome. Rightly or not, it would be perceived by the players as a good use of advantage, and that's a really important consideration at grassroots. Odd incidents of a player losing their head shouldn't scare us away from doing as well as we can most of the time.
At grassroots, I would still argue that you should be looking to do this if possible. There may be odd games where it's been super spicy and you should hit the whistle as quickly as you can, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Players want advantage most of the time, and playing a good advantage is one of the best ways of showing empathy for the game and getting players on your side.
As the kick occurs we see the white #5 come into shot in acres of space on the left wing - it may not have resulted in a productive advantage, but allowing play to continue, the ball to get to that #5 and then going back and cautioning the red midfielder after would have been an ideal outcome. Rightly or not, it would be perceived by the players as a good use of advantage, and that's a really important consideration at grassroots. Odd incidents of a player losing their head shouldn't scare us away from doing as well as we can most of the time.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Balderdash. The R is in no way "culpable" for a vicious kick-out by a player too stupid to try to keep playing. This isn't basketball that expects immediate whistles. We are taught a patient whistle for a reason: advantage is not always obvious instantly and we can't un-blow the whistle. Experienced players know the whistle isn't instant. Yes, the proper end result here was no advantage and calling the foul. But that is a completely different analysis from whether the R was right to be patient to see what was there before blowing the whistle--he was dead on in how he handled this.
You certainly always like to point the finger at referees when things go wrong. At senior levels you are told to let the game breathe and are expected to wait and see and only signal advantage if it comes off. If the referee here blows immediately and the fouled player doesn't act like a complete tool and instead plays the ball to the 5 who is free on the left wing he rightly gets slated.
One person and one person only to blame here and that is the player kicking out. If this was the Dog and Duck vs the Frog and Parrot on a Sunday morning then I would agree and say just give the foul, but it wasn't. If a professional player being paid tens of thousands of pounds a week can't stop himself from kicking out he deserves to be sent off and shouldn't be protected by the referee killing the game, at least not unless there has been some previous.
As with many others, I am waiting and seeing here. Of course, it would come with plenty of vocals so that the player on the ball knows a freekick is coming, but simply blowing the whistle is not what the team on the ball want. They are hoping a hole will open in the midfield.
Also, regardless of advantage accruing or not, I am likely coming back for a caution.
Also, regardless of advantage accruing or not, I am likely coming back for a caution.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
Stop the game, no kick out
who is responsible for stopping and starting the game?
the referee