Manchester United vs Liverpool - Boring VAR process question

[one]

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.

A free kick is retain possession with the bonus of no opponent being allowed to challenge the next shot , but i guess the bonus doesn't apply in England much as defenders running to the ball and closing angles are very rarely punished

 

[Big Cat]

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

I wish several thousand referees and several hundred observers could sit in a large room and thrash out what is expected in terms of 'advantage'.
It really bothers me that observers think Step 5 footballers are utter dogsh1t in terms of ability and rarely have the skill to benefit from advantage
Observers also seem to think that playing advantage is risky to Match Control because fouled players may seek recrimination. Quite the opposite in my experience of having refereed 3 or 4 hundred games. The players generally applaud a referee who 'looks' to play advantage

Regardless of what you may be taught on Core or at Contrib Level, Step 5 observers basically don't want us to attempt advantage unless there's a very imminent & clear opportunity to score a goal, almost akin to an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity. There should not be such a big divide in expectation between Contrib and Supply level football, although I do concede that a Sunday League side would benefit from advantage far less frequently

 

[JamesL]

A free kick is retain possession with the bonus of no opponent being allowed to challenge the next shot , but i guess the bonus doesn't apply in England much as defenders running to the ball and closing angles are very rarely punished

No but elite teams play in patterns. Stopping the game interrupts these patterns and allows defending/offending teams time to reset or get reorganised. Generally, a player in a position to foul you is out of position and therefore leaves space to be exploited which is more beneficial to the non-offending teams at this level of the game. These referees spend a lot of time analysing teams, and how they play, and I am sure that it the PGMO and it's paymasters didn't view these situations as advantage then it would be stopped quite quickly.
The lower down the pyramid the less beneficial these situations are and free kicks often are better. What we see on TV is not the same as the games available to us and so we handle them, and interpret the law slightly differently.

 

[Big Cat]

I like the two arm signal for advantage. This is unequivocal when expressing the referee's intent
The one arm signal should just indicate 'possession retained, more benefit to the spectacle of allowing play to continue' and should only be encouraged in professional football

 

[JamesL]

I wish several thousand referees and several hundred observers could sit in a large room and thrash out what is expected in terms of 'advantage'.
It really bothers me that observers think Step 5 footballers are utter dogsh1t in terms of ability and rarely have the skill to benefit from advantage
Observers also seem to think that playing advantage is risky to Match Control because fouled players may seek recrimination. Quite the opposite in my experience of having refereed 3 or 4 hundred games. The players generally applaud a referee who 'looks' to play advantage

Regardless of what you may be taught on Core or at Contrib Level, Step 5 observers basically don't want us to attempt advantage unless there's a very imminent & clear opportunity to score a goal, almost akin to an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity. There should not be such a big divide in expectation between Contrib and Supply level football, although I do concede that a Sunday League side would benefit from advantage far less frequently

Each situation has to be judged on merit.

It's not far from fact that players at step 5 /6 are not as technically gifted, nor are they playing on the same perfectly cut hybrid pitches compared with higher standards so there's lots to consider other than just skill level.

I recall doing a friendly game a few years ago. Got an earful of a defender for not playing advantage. 2nd half I let him have advantage. He promptly gave the ball away and his team conceded.

 

[RefereeX]

Nothing worse than refereeing a very skilled (for his level) step 5/6 player who likes to run at defenders with the ball, takes many a little knock as he charges through, but keeps going. Knowing when to blow for the foul or call advantage is extremely difficult, and you almost always get an ear bashing either way!

 

[Big Cat]

Each situation has to be judged on merit.

It's not far from fact that players at step 5 /6 are not as technically gifted, nor are they playing on the same perfectly cut hybrid pitches compared with higher standards so there's lots to consider other than just skill level.

I recall doing a friendly game a few years ago. Got an earful of a defender for not playing advantage. 2nd half I let him have advantage. He promptly gave the ball away and his team conceded.

It's the only competency on which I disagree with the observer's creed. I'd be happy to compromise and look for advantage less than I do, but waiting for an OGSO at Step 5 is not the right threshold (assuming the game permits letting out a bit of reign)
In my experience, especially from Middlesex observers at Step 5/6, they're dead against advantage in the absence of an OGSO. Must come from a collective RA mentality (or something), because it has been said on here that observers are not formally given this advice

One obvious thing that holds me back is that I referee for the clubs. It has been said that I should referee for myself (in terms of progression). But this does not sit well with me because I'm giving service to the clubs and lean towards giving them what they and not being selfish

 

[JamesL]

It's the only competency on which I disagree with the observer's creed. I'd be happy to compromise and look for advantage less than I do, but waiting for an OGSO at Step 5 is not the right threshold (assuming the game permits letting out a bit of reign)
In my experience, especially from Middlesex observers at Step 5/6, they're dead against advantage in the absence of an OGSO

As someone who operates on both sides of the clipboard, so to speak, advantage is a tricky competency to get right, but perhaps some insight into what we are looking for when observing... And spoiler alert, we're not just looking for OGSOs.
In any competency, to be rewarded or to be given development there has to be an impact. So if you are playing advantage and there's no impact, i.e. it's just possession retention there is nothing to reward, similarly there's nothing to give development advice. To get a reward there has to be something tangible on the end otherwise you leave it open for moderation and also appeal if you give 6.5 for example and there is no impact.
If you play advantage and it leads to a goal, you've got an impact. That can be rewarded. If you play advantage and it goes out for a throw in. No impact. No reward - you may get some minor advice.
If you play advantage and the end result is a free kick in a better position. Impact. Can be rewarded. If you play advantage in defensive 3rd and it results in the opposition scoring. Impact = development advice.
You will almost always get some commentary on advantage at 7.0 because whilst there is no impact there is usually some extra things to consider and shock horror, sometimes we might say consider if a free kick is more advantageous and this will usually follow where you play advantage and there is no positive impact. Advice given here is to give you some thoughts on a) how to turn a 7.0 into a 7.5 or better OR b) how to stop a 7.0 turning into a 6.5.

Importantly, where you have played advantage in a game an observer will want to recognise that. If there's no impact the only award can be a 7.0. so you can have a 7.0 which makes no mention of the advantage you played or a 7.0 that recognises you tried and suggestion as to how you can avoid potential dev or be rewarded in future. I'd always prefer the latter.

 

[FirsFox40]

Another thing to mention is that the further down the pyramid you go, the more likely you are to have the ‘fouled’ player turn round and kick the offender up the arse while you’re considering playing an advantage, despite the fact they were clear up the wing with team mates in support

 

[Big Cat]

As someone who operates on both sides of the clipboard, so to speak, advantage is a tricky competency to get right, but perhaps some insight into what we are looking for when observing... And spoiler alert, we're not just looking for OGSOs.
In any competency, to be rewarded or to be given development there has to be an impact. So if you are playing advantage and there's no impact, i.e. it's just possession retention there is nothing to reward, similarly there's nothing to give development advice. To get a reward there has to be something tangible on the end otherwise you leave it open for moderation and also appeal if you give 6.5 for example and there is no impact.
If you play advantage and it leads to a goal, you've got an impact. That can be rewarded. If you play advantage and it goes out for a throw in. No impact. No reward - you may get some minor advice.
If you play advantage and the end result is a free kick in a better position. Impact. Can be rewarded. If you play advantage in defensive 3rd and it results in the opposition scoring. Impact = development advice.
You will almost always get some commentary on advantage at 7.0 because whilst there is no impact there is usually some extra things to consider and shock horror, sometimes we might say consider if a free kick is more advantageous and this will usually follow where you play advantage and there is no positive impact. Advice given here is to give you some thoughts on a) how to turn a 7.0 into a 7.5 or better OR b) how to stop a 7.0 turning into a 6.5.

Importantly, where you have played advantage in a game an observer will want to recognise that. If there's no impact the only award can be a 7.0. so you can have a 7.0 which makes no mention of the advantage you played or a 7.0 that recognises you tried and suggestion as to how you can avoid potential dev or be rewarded in future. I'd always prefer the latter.

Yes, your viewpoint is all agreeable

Quote from my most recent observation

Advantage should be used as a precious jewel that is kept in your pocket and only comes out on very special occasions when it
benefits you and is good for the game, i.e. goal scored or scoring opportunity.

This observer's viewpoint is disagreeable and is of the ilk which I always get from observer's from that County
For context, on two occasions, I played and signalled advantage. Two to three seconds later, advantage did not accrue so I came back to the FK
In my experience, a quick whistle in these circumstances can be very dangerous because an accrued advantage leads to loss of Match Control
Based on experience, I will not use the quick whistle, not will I use a 'silent' delayed whistle because signalling advantage is better than the silent delayed whistle. Down here, I will continue to get minor devs for doing so, but at least I won't get a major dev for the carnage that may otherwise ensue

My Club Marks have improved dramatically over the last two years. This is the one aspect of my game I think is responsible for the improvement
My observation scores have gone the other way (with constant minor dev commentary for this competency)
I'm not planning on changing anything as I won't take advice I don't value. Your advice is sound enough BTW

 

[santa sangria]

At 3-0 and with Nunez desperate for a shot on goal it was what football expected.

 

[RustyRef]

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.

Pretty much that, when I came through from 7 to 4, including at 4, it was repeatedly preached to signal advantage immediately even if you aren't sure it will accrue, I can even remember it from the initial course. Once I got L3 I was told by observers, and my coach who was a former Premier League referee, that I needed to delay the signal and wait to see if it accrued before signalling. You are absolutely correct that observers, and presumably coaches as well, were a lot more varied and principled in their personal preferences than they are allowed to be now.

That said, how often do we see Premier League or FIFA referees signalling advantage and then coming back for the free kick? It is extremely rare.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

As @JamesL has said, it is the impact on the game which dictates the mark. Referees at Level 2, 3 and 4 (Steps 2-6) have access to the Observer Report Writing Manual, which includes examples at various levels of refereeing expertise.
Observer reports are scrutinised regularly by the Observer Peer Review Group members with a view to continuing improvement.

 

[Big Cat]

In any competency, to be rewarded or to be given development there has to be an impact

I very much agree with this statement in general BTW
It's a means by which observers can avoid subjectivity
For example, I was on the line at the weekend and the referee chose not to caution for what looked like AAA (possibly/probably, but I couldn't say for sure as it was subjective from my viewpoint)
If that player had chosen to ignore the warning and had I been observing, I would've considered a development point as merely warning the player was ineffective. As it was, the player subsequently behaved himself. Instead therefore, I would've rewarded the impact of the warning. The game and impact would determine the outcome for the referee, not my subjectivity. Can't say fairer than that

 

[RefereeX]

Similarly, last season on a step 4 game I had a situation where a player absolutely booted the ball away after being called offside about 10 minutes in to the game with the scores still level.
I gave him a very firm warning that this was a really silly thing to do. My observer report gave me a 7.0 in whatever competency it was, stipulating good practice examples but then listing this as a counter-active example that the observer used as development advice effectively saying he feels as a minimum I should have brought his captain in. But after mentioning it he acknowledged that whatever I said obviously was effective as there were no further examples of delaying the restart for the rest of the match. So effectively my management of that situation cost me a 7.5 for the other good practice he listed, despite the fact he actually specifically says that what I said was effective. Go figure.

 

[FirsFox40]

Had something similar @RefereeX. First offside called of the game 15 mins in, against the home captain who says “oh come onnnn” towards the AR on the far side. I’m 20 yards away and just go “hey, (name)” and just give him THE ‘come on now’ look and the ‘put a lid on it’ hand gesture and he thumbs up and we get on with it with no other problem. (Should add I’ve known that captain for years as we played together).

In changing room, observer said good work with players, using first names, gained respect early on without looking busy or making it The Ref Show™ . Then got a development point of not making an example of the first sign of dissent (and gave that as the scenario). Grr.