Manchester United vs Liverpool - Boring VAR process question

[bester]

Contact on edge of penalty area. Drops to Nunez who shots . Taylor does a show pony advantage after shot goes wide.

Replays show contact was inside the penalty area.

Didn't think it was a foul to start with but as advantage was given and the contact was inside the penalty area do they need to send it down for an on field review.

 

[RustyRef]

With the new, lower than ever, bar there is no way they are getting involved with that, Especially not with Taylor having played advantage from which Liverpool had a shot at goal. Top level referees very rarely give a team two bites of the cherry, i.e. play advantage that leads to a shot at goal then come back for the foul.

But process wise, if VAR felt it was a foul and Taylor had made a clear and obvious error they would have had to recommend a review, with Taylor then having the final say.

 

[Kinsleyr]

Quick question on this. If Taylor thought it was a foul but outside of the box so waved play on, are VAR able to intervene and say the foul was in the box so would be a penalty?

 

[Big Cat]

They're indicating advantage when they're not actually playing advantage because they're 'point scoring'. @bester is astute for noticing that AT inadvertently denied Liverpool a PK by playing advantage because 'advantage' means AT thought it was a foul tackle. It should have been play on but AT was trying to get credit on the advantage competency when there was no foul
Happens continually throughout every EPL game

 

[RustyRef]

They're indicating advantage when they're not actually playing advantage because they're 'point scoring'. @bester is astute for noticing that AT inadvertently denied Liverpool a PK by playing advantage because 'advantage' means AT thought it was a foul tackle. It should have been play on but AT was trying to get credit on the advantage competency when there was no foul
Happens continually throughout every EPL game

I agree when they play advantage in defensive areas, or when there is a free kick centrally in shooting distance and the ball goes out to the wing, that is just possession, not advantage. But in this case Liverpool got a shot away, so that clearly was an advantage.

 

[Big Cat]

I agree when they play advantage in defensive areas, or when there is a free kick centrally in shooting distance and the ball goes out to the wing, that is just possession, not advantage. But in this case Liverpool got a shot away, so that clearly was an advantage.

The point being that AT shot himself in the foot because he inadvertently played advantage for a FT in the PA
It's of little consequence, other than being mildly amusing to see the incessant advantage signal backfire

 

[one]

Advantage requires three Ps. EPL referee apply it solely on the basis of possession. There are times when you allow the game to flow but it is not an advantage. It's a case of the attackers are no better off with a free kick, they have the ball so let's not stop play. Signalling advantage is a misapplication.

One of the games I saw on the weekend, a player was fouled 15m in his own half and forced to play it back to his own keeper in the PA. As the stiker was immediately closing down on the keeper the referee played advantage. Absolutely ridiculous application of advantage.

 

[socal lurker]

But in this case Liverpool got a shot away, so that clearly was an advantage.

Is it? Advantage is supposed to be that it is better for the offended team that the foul not be called. “A shot away” is not necessarily better than a PK. Indeed, it rarely is. And that raises an i tereti g question, at least to me. Assuming that the playing of advantage on what was otherwise a PK is reviewable (which I think is less than clear, but probably possible), an advantage call that was valid if it was “only” a DFK may be a clearly erroneous advantage if the foul was in the PA. (But I also agree that the way professional soccer, especially the PL, applies advantage, I doubt we’ll ever see that theoretic distinction.)

 

[one]

Is it? Advantage is supposed to be that it is better for the offended team that the foul not be called. “A shot away” is not necessarily better than a PK. Indeed, it rarely is. And that raises an i tereti g question, at least to me. Assuming that the playing of advantage on what was otherwise a PK is reviewable (which I think is less than clear, but probably possible), an advantage call that was valid if it was “only” a DFK may be a clearly erroneous advantage if the foul was in the PA. (But I also agree that the way professional soccer, especially the PL, applies advantage, I doubt we’ll ever see that theoretic distinction.)

My head hurts trying to understand this. I think I probably possibly understood it and agree with it.

 

[RefereeX]

Advantage requires three Ps. EPL referee apply it solely on the basis of possession. There are times when you allow the game to flow but it is not an advantage. It's a case of the attackers are no better off with a free kick, they have the ball so let's not stop play. Signalling advantage is a misapplication.

One of the games I saw on the weekend, a player was fouled 15m in his own half and forced to play it back to his own keeper in the PA. As the stiker was immediately closing down on the keeper the referee played advantage. Absolutely ridiculous application of advantage.

But advantage also asks up to take in to consideration the ability of the players. Clearly at this level of football, that's very high. I don't think advantage always has to be taken in the literal sense of 'you're better off in this situation with the ball than you are with me stopping for the free kick'. Sometimes it can mean 'you're still going to get the ball away ok with limited pressure and there's little to be gained for the spectating world by me blowing my whistle and stopping the game'.
Not saying that was/wasn't the case in the specific example mentioned, but in general.

 

[one]

I don't think advantage always has to be taken in the literal sense of 'you're better off in this situation with the ball than you are with me stopping for the free kick'. Sometimes it can mean 'you're still going to get the ball away ok with limited pressure and there's little to be gained for the spectating world by me blowing my whistle and stopping the game'.

This is exactly what I am talking about that is not advantage, literally according to what the law says. Laws don't say sometimes, or if you are ok with the ball or little to be gained, spectators etc. There must be benefit to the non-offending team. Those other cases are all good case of allowing the game to flow without applying advantage, because there is none.



Must add, if you are considering skill level with the ball still in possession without stoppage, you must also consider skill with set pieces.

 

[RefereeX]

This is exactly what I am talking about that is not advantage, literally according to what the law says. Laws don't say sometimes, or if you are ok with the ball or little to be gained, spectators etc. There must be benefit to the non-offending team. Those other cases are all good case of allowing the game to flow without applying advantage, because there is none.

View attachment 7535

Must add, if you are considering skill level with the ball still in possession without stoppage, you must also consider skill with set pieces.

Yeah appreciate it may not be in accordance with law, but that's the expectation for the game. Prem referees are very unpopular with general football fans as it is. If they started interfering with more fouls of little consequence when a team still have possession then they'd be even more unpopular.

 

[JamesL]

Also have to remember that sometimes the tail wags the dog a bit. As I understand it the teams/players have expressed a desire to continue playing where they retain possession and low severity offence so what we would not consider as an advantage situation changes significantly at the elite level because its what that level of the game wants.
Like it or not, at this level of the game, the clubs and the PL are stakeholders in how the game is refereed and law is applied. If that's what the game at this level wants, then whilst we don't necessarily agree with it, we are in a minority.

 

[one]

Yeah appreciate it may not be in accordance with law, but that's the expectation for the game. Prem referees are very unpopular with general football fans as it is. If they started interfering with more fouls of little consequence when a team still have possession then they'd be even more unpopular.

To be clear I am not asking for a free kick to be given. I am asking to not signal advantage. In my games I shout keep going.

In a seminar with a very experienced assessor/observer (ex world cup referee) we were advised if you are averaging more than a couple of advantages a game, you are probably not applying it correctly.

 

[JamesL]

To be clear I am not asking for a free kick to be given. I am asking to not signal advantage. In my games I shout keep going.

In a seminar with a very experienced assessor/observer (ex world cup referee) we were advised if you are averaging more than a couple of advantages a game, you are probably not applying it correctly.

In the games you and I referee, totally agree.

There is a necessity to signal something in these games. You're not just telling the players you've seen a foul, you're also telling the technical area occupants, the upto 90,000 paying spectators, the millions watching on TV. To give no signal would be detrimental to the viewing experience.

Back to my earlier post, the teams/players have said what they perceive to be a benefit, if they think keeping the possession is more beneficial, it's not for us to say that is wrong.

It also allows the referee to then bring it back if the advantage doesn't accrue. No signal makes that harder for the average participant to understand

It's as much about optics than anything else.

 

[one]

In the games you and I referee, totally agree.

There is a necessity to signal something in these games. You're not just telling the players you've seen a foul, you're also telling the technical area occupants, the upto 90,000 paying spectators, the millions watching on TV. To give no signal would be detrimental to the viewing experience.

Back to my earlier post, the teams/players have said what they perceive to be a benefit, if they think keeping the possession is more beneficial, it's not for us to say that is wrong.

I don't think we are going to agree on this. Using the same signal for what is effectively two different reasons for not stopping the game.

It seems to be only an English thing and I haven't seen it the same way in any other top leagues I occasionally watch or major tournaments. So I can's see how it could be a "good thing" for English football but nowhere else.

It also allows the referee to then bring it back if the advantage doesn't accrue. No signal makes that harder for the average participant to understand

I thought in England from a certain level and up you don't bring play back once signalled advantage.

 

[RefereeX]

I don't think we are going to agree on this. Using the same signal for what is effectively two different reasons for not stopping the game.

It seems to be only an English thing and I haven't seen it the same way in any other top leagues I occasionally watch or major tournaments. So I can's see how it could be a "good thing" for English football but nowhere else.



I thought in England from a certain level and up you don't bring play back once signalled advantage.

This is news to me, and I'm in England.
I've been taught you can delay your advantage signal a second to ensure there is an advantage before signalling it or you can signal immediately and bring it back if the advantage doesn't accrue.

 

[JamesL]

I don't think we are going to agree on this. Using the same signal for what is effectively two different reasons for not stopping the game.

It seems to be only an English thing and I haven't seen it the same way in any other top leagues I occasionally watch or major tournaments. So I can's see how it could be a "good thing" for English football but nowhere else.

Nowhere in the world has the same viewership or scrutiny as the PL. The only thing we won't agree on is what is considered as a benefit to the non-offending team. In a game where conceding possession can be disastrous, retaining possession can be a benefit. The law doesn't make a distinction what is a benefit, some attach an attacking emphasis to this, but I find nothibg to support this. If the clubs say it is beneficial for us to retain the ball, then it is an advantage situation.

I thought in England from a certain level and up you don't bring play back once signalled advantage.

Not sure where this comes from, have never been told this directly in any training nor seen any material to suggest as much.

 

[one]

This is news to me, and I'm in England.
I've been taught you can delay your advantage signal a second to ensure there is an advantage before signalling it or you can signal immediately and bring it back if the advantage doesn't accrue.

Not sure where this comes from, have never been told this directly in any training nor seen any material to suggest as much.

In England it has always been taught to signal straight away and bring it back if necessary. The argument for this approach is the fouled player might just think you have missed it and exact their own revenge, and by signalling it with arms and voice they will know you have actually seen it.

Once you get to level 3, as I found to my cost, this seems to change and the expectation is that you don't signal until the advantage has actually accrued. I got pulled up a few times by observers for going back for a free kick after signalling advantage, and it took me a full season to get out of the practice.

Above is from a quick search but I am fairly certain reading similar posts prior to this as well when "when to signal advantage" had been discussed.

 

[JamesL]

Above is from a quick search but I am fairly certain reading similar posts prior to this as well when "when to signal advantage" had been discussed.

I have only ever read it on here, that doesn't mean I know where it came from.

In my experience have only ever been rewarded when signalling advantage and pulling it back when it doesn't accrue, at the same level as Rusty is talking about. I don't know when rusty was on the contributory lists but perhaps it has a) either changed or b) a preference of the observer that gave the advice. Much is being done to align and remove these observer preferences but ultimately we all have our own opinions on how it should be done so total alignment I think is an impossible dream.

I attend a lot of CPD courses (I think I spent more time learning to ref that I did actually reffing last season) and the subject has never been covered.