E-mail from the USSF refereeing department today included a video telling us we can apply advantage to offside offenses. This is a departure from specific instruction in ATR. Here's the video starring, as always, Michael Kennedy and his hands. http://www.brainshark.com/ussoccer/vu?pi=zHHzFyrD0z31xyz0
Yay, now I don't have to sound like I'm high by saying the former instruction at clinics. Logic prevails, some faith in humanity retored.
Hallelujah!! It would be interesting to know why this was changed. Perhaps the new head of the PRO, or now that Kleinaitis is no longer in his position? Now they need to correct some other concocted concepts. PH
"Two-touch" violations were also specifically mentioned as now being fair game for the advantage concept.
I'm confused...this is directly counter to the Laws of the Game. How are we able to diverge from the current Laws?
This change is spot on with the Laws as far as I can tell. It is directly counter to the current Advice to Referees but not the Laws of the Game. USSF has simply changed its interpretation of this specific part of the Laws of the Game.
I thought La Rikardo was quoting the Laws of the Game. I guess I'm confused...can someone give me an example of advantage from Law 11?
I'm puzzled by this example from the paper. Who said the infringement had to be committed by a player in order for advantage to be applied? I see nothing in the Laws that would prohibit advantage being applied to misconduct by a substitute or substituted player.
Indeed. In fact, the I&G says (page 62): If a substitute or a substituted player enters the fi eld of play without permission: • the referee must stop play (although not immediately if the player in question does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied) Once again, the US appears out of step, with its statement that advantage cannot be applied to a substitute player. Why not? According to the I&G, advantage can also apply to team officials entering the field, as well as players re-entering without permission. - QC
You must have received some poor information. 1. I personally spoke with Alfred on the topic of applying advantage to an offside decision last summer (about a year ago) and he stated that indeed it could and should be applied. 2. I met with Alfred again last month and he told me that he is staying on with the referee instruction for the USSF.
The only guess I can come up with is that this instruction is for the rank-and-file weekend referee, to keep them from complicating their lives, and that other standards are otherwise communicated among the high-level guys.
I did not have any information at all. If you read my post, I was curious as to why the turnabout occurred and made a couple of suggestions. 1. This was not his position for the previous 10 years or so at least. He oversaw the production and approved (although did not write all himself) the documents that were distributed that contained these instructions. So there is still the question of what initiated this change in concept. If his viewpoint was different 12 months ago, why has it taken so long to get the information out? There have been plenty of other opportunities to do so during that time period. This topic has been debated, somewhat heatedly in BigSoccer previously. Proponents of "advantage only for Law 12" frequently cited "because US Soccer says so therefore we have to do it" and came up with theories as to why it was correct. 2. In what capacity? He had seemingly left his long-standing full-time salaried position as head of referee instruction sometime earlier this year. PH
OK, at a theoretical level I'm wrestling with Scenario 4 of the new guidance: the defender takes a GK, it is blown back, the same defender touches the ball, which then enters the goal. The answer is advantage, good goal. Law 13 says with respect to an IFK: "A goal can be scored only if the ball subsequently touches another player before it enters the goal." Without even getting to the question of advantage, why does this goal conform with Law 13?* *A simple out would be to rationalize a difference between scoring for one's own team vs the other team, but the bullets that follow seem to treat the two ends of the field the same.
I noticed that too. There was that video of it happening from that Germany lower division game a few years ago where they scored off a goal kick. It shouldn't have counted. Its the old "defender handles ball to stop it from going it straight from a throw-in" question. Can't deny a goal that wouldn't have counted. Is this the same way? Law 12 on an IDFK says "A goal can be scored only if the ball subsequently touches another player before it enters the goal". ANOTHER player is the key here IMO. I'd assume this would translate over to law 16.
I can't believe I quoted Law 13 instead of Law 16 . . . . Interestingly, Law 16 does not refer to another player in discussing a goal being scored. As with a DFK, Law 16 only refers to not scoring directly, and says nothing about another player. But it can't be that there is different result for DFK and GK on the one hand and an IFK on the other -- can it? I guess, in the unlikely event this ever happens, I would apply the scenario to any kick by the defense -- but that is not where I would get left to my own reasoning.
Not sure why you guys thought they would get all parts right at once after having struggled with the concept of advantage for years. A big thumbs up for getting there though.
Which if no one touches it, and it goes into the goal (all assuming it did clear the PA to actually be in play), the restart is a CK as you can't directly score against yourself on a GK.
That's great, glad to hear this! That is more than Chicago has done for most of the previous 10 years or so. They did their best to to ignore his points of view, and ceased using him in instruction and assessing, because he kept on pointing out the all things they were doing that were wrong! Advantage was just one of many. Fortunately, things seem to be changing now along these lines. PH
I'm a little confused. I was doing this "offside advantage" at least five years ago. Are you saying that US Soccer has only now suggested it to its referees?
Until now ATR and USSF has specifically said that advantage can only be applied to Law 12. Of course that didn't stop refs from letting play continue...just not giving the actual advantage signal. "Keep playing keeper has it".
