Looking for a little guidance as to whether I was off base talking to CR. I am the assistant coach. Two games this weekend U10B. First game of Spring season with two teams from the same club (Red v White). There are some politics that make this game a little more intense than it should be. Anyway, White is up 2-1 with a few minutes left. Red has pushed everyone forward, White gets possession inside the 18 and starts to dribble to the sideline looking for an opportunity to clear, nearest Red bear hugs White but White still manages to drag Red maintaining possession - CR whistle to mouth but doesn't whistle - White still fighting off bear hug as more Red starts to harass, White finally is able to play it out of bounds off Red. Meanwhile, I'm asking for the call. After the ball is out of play CR tells me he's got it covered and asks me what I want - I tell him I don't want advantage in our PA with 6 Red swarming and one Red football tackling - he shushes me (fair enough). After the game he told me he would've called the foul if we'd lost possession. I suggested there was no advantage to be gained in that position and frankly I'm not used to our U10 CRs being able to apply advantage much less really knowing what it means. Anyway, I thanked him for his competence and would love to have him for any of our games. Aside from this incident, I thought the whole crew was good. So, what do you think? Do you apply advantage differently based on the game situation. We had everyone back defending since it was so close to the end and they were throwing everyone into our PA. I would have understood if we had an outlet up top but we had no one - am I expecting too much? Second game, again very well refereed game. One player on opposing team consistently pushing/grabbing - CR has talked to him a few times and told him to stop - he keeps doing it. Nothing really malicious - just irritating and slowly his hands and elbows seems to getting higher. Finally, a hand gets too high and whacks our center mid across the face - I don't think it was intentional just a continuation and escalation of what he's been doing the whole game. CR sees it and I guess decides the game is almost over and it's not worth it - play continues. I was hoping that instead of carding him - the CR might just tell the coach it was time for a sub. I'm still struggling with my expectations for this age group. These kids can actually play a pretty attractive brand of soccer, however cynical stuff is starting to creep in in terms of tactics and fouls. I still haven't seen an outright dive but I guess I'll know everything has changed when I do.
1) Safe 2) Fair 3) Kids get to play, adults get to watch (not participate). 4) Coaches get to give instructions to players. It actually sounds to me like you have been blessed with reasonably competent referees at a very young age. Hooray. As to your specific questions, it sure smells like "you had to be there" stuff. Hard to imagine a "bear hug" ever not being a foul at U10. But, from everything else you wrote, I'm guessing that description is pretty much in the eye of the beholder??? So, I'm gonna take the same out for the "whack... across the face."
As to your first question, I hardly ever apply advantage in the defensive 1/3. While there are exceptions, it's usually far better to hit the whistle and let the defense have a good clearance. Possession does not always = advantage. As to the bolded section, I'd have carded. That's how end of game brawls get started. Ok, maybe not at U10, but U19 - you betcha. One advantage of having previously played, I know what would hack me off if it was being done to me. I try my best to stop that and not let it continue, or worse escalate.
Second what soccerman says. Referees, repeat after me: "Mere possession is not necessarily advantage." Especially the farther way from goal you are, the less likelihood there is for advantage. Sure, sometimes you'll blow a foul, and the player comes out of it and whines about advantage. Then you just point out that they are 60 yards from goal with half the other team still to beat, so there's not much advantage there. OneGoodKnee, in the second instance did the referee even call a foul when the hand hit the player's face? Even if he's not going to give a card, sure sounds like a foul--it doesn't have to be deliberate to get a whistle.
Yes, rarely, below the pro level, do you allow advantage in the defensive third. I would say, however, that you've got a very good referee that will even look for advantage in a U-10 game. Not giving advantage in the defensive third I would characterize as the next higher level of skill and understanding, but a referee who has that isn't doing U-10 games. As to the other situation, call the foul. It may or may not have been malicious, but it's hard to tell sometimes, just because so many players at this age have relatively little body control in the first place. (When they get to the pros, then everything has to be treated as deliberate.) So just call the foul, if only to send the message that we're not going to have any 'accident-on purpose' clumsiness. Cards to taste and experience of the referee. "He needs a sub" sounds great and it is, if it works out, but where are you if the coach won't? Now you've got a clear message from the coach that he thinks you are the enemy, trying to tell him to take out someone that he will certainly claim is his best player. In some high school games, where I know the coach's attitude in advance, I have sometimes used the line "Coach, six is doing stupid stuff out here. Do you want to sub him or shall I?" (Remember that, in high school, players who are cautioned have to sub out.) The coach always goes into a frenzy of getting a sub ready. "I love it when a plan comes together."
No, no foul. I read his reaction as 'We are almost done here - let's just get it over with.' There were probably two minutes left and maybe he thought it wasn't necessary. I thought he should have called the foul and told the kid that no more would be tolerated. As a coach I'm not quite ready for cards unless I see bad intent or some flavor of DOGSO, however maybe it's time. I'm actually very pleased that my quibbles with the level of refereeing had to with matters of interpretation and something that had no material impact on the outcome (therefore FAIR). If the first two games are any indication we are in for a treat this season. The Adult CRs were very good overall and I had two teenage ARs have a productive exchange with me during the match. One suggested I warn my keeper that he was awfully close to being out of the PA when he punted - I warned him to give himself a little more room. She later told me she was a keeper and just wanted to make sure he didn't get caught out. I thought that was great. The other teenage AR quickly talked me through a call I was a little frustrated by - told me what he saw from his angle and that was that. I wonder if someone stepped up the mentoring of the young ones or if we just got lucky.
The whole idea of advantage is the potential for a promising attack, not just the possibility. Mere possibility exists in any situation where the offended team retains possession; that alone is not a reason to wait for advantage. I'm having a difficult time visualizing advantage at U10 in the defending third, or even in the central third. I think it would have to look like that one great player on the field who can outrun everyone has the ball with an unobstructed pathway to the goal.
There is no reason to be showing cards to third-graders. The player needs instruction. If the coach isn't providing it, it's up to the referee. This is why adult referees are critical in U-little games, but there just aren't enough to go around.
I think that is a misleading way to describe advantage. The LOTG say nothing about a "promising attack" (nor does the I&G or the ATR). The LOTG instructs that the Referee A u10 team with clear possessionin the back 1/3 is not going to have a promisng attack; but given that at this age a goal kick is often the best scoring opportunity for the opposing team it may well be that a team with clear possession (not what was desribed in the OP, of course), may well have a much better advantage from continuing with that possession than in having the referee bring back the ball and figure out how to take a FK while the defense gets itself set up. (At the same time, at U10, one has to be very careful about advantage, as the players are likely not to understand, the coaches are likely not to understand, and the parents don't have a clue . . . .)
You need to be able to read the situation and the level of the team. A team who play a possession style and want to move the ball quickly would rather have possession than a free-kick which will slow them down and allow the opposition to get back into position. Yes, we are taking about U10, but I don't like the definite way of thinking that you always blow in the defensive third. Let the game flow and let the kids play.
However, even U10s need to learn that bear-hugging and opponent is not an acceptable way to play soccer. No way I'm calling advantage on that in a U10 game, regardless of where it is on the field. Plus, you don't always blow in the defending third, it's just far less likely that letting a team play on there will result in any conceivable benefit that will outweigh the benefit of a free kick.
I find it ludicrous that we are even discussing "advantage" in a U10 match. The number of players at this age who have the skills and temperament to take advantage of "advantage" are few and far between. OTOH, the number of bumps and dumps at this that fall into the "trifling or doubtful" category are great. Do not confuse those events or the innate clumsiness of a U10 with "advantage". Also, they are very careless, they are totally reckless, and they do everything with the maximum amount of force possible. Send-off the lot.
I'm with LondonAFC on this. A slow whistle might be just the thing the defending team needs to get the ball out of the defensive third. The temperamenht to take advantage of advantage is a mindset that regardless of whether I am fouled, bumped or tripped, I am going to take this ball and attack. You could argue that this temperament is more prevalent at U-10 that at, say U-15. Let's say the kid who was bearhugging had stumbled and just grabbed the other player to brace himself; let's say the kid with the ball was set low to the ground and not likely to fall over; let's say he had demonstrated an aggressive attacking personality in the game; let's just say that all the opponents were in the penalty area; let's just say that if the attacker gets out of the bear hug it will be the best opportunity they have had this half; let's say that they had been 'outcoached' on free kicks all game. Take any two or three of these suppositions, and it would be unfair to blow the whistle--defensive third or no. Maybe it would even be a teaching moment for the parents (or players or coaches).
Now that the discussion has played out a bit let me add a little more context given the tenor of the responses. The White player who has won the ball in his defensive third is the most technically gifted player on his side - he also might be the strongest and fastest (thus his ability to fight through the grab and bear hug), the Red player who applies the bear hug is by a mile the most technical kid on the field he is also pretty small but lightning quick and very fast. If anyone on White could wriggle free in that situation and start an attack from his own PA it is this kid. My issue was more with the context of the game at that moment and my lack of faith that a CR for U10 can make some of the judgments that have been suggested. A couple of minutes left defending a one goal lead with the opponent with everyone forward - just call the foul. He let us proceed with a throw even though he acknowledged he would have blown for a foul if we'd lost possession - I'd still rather have a free kick out of our own end over a throw. Let's age up the context a bit - U17 or even adult - with a couple minutes left defending a 1 goal lead with the opponent pressing - I still want the foul every time in that situation. In a defensive context - I think of advantage as a matter of probabilities not possibilities. In an offensive context you can afford to let the possibilities play out to some degree. Anyway - good discussion. I was happy with the ref in the end even if I didn't agree with this one decision.
Slightly different environments but I had 3 interesting advantage decisions that I'm curious about other opinions. Game 1: Academy match. Attacker fouled right as he was entering 18. Slow whistle to see what happens and ball rolls to his teammate who takes a touch and blasts a shot aimed for the upper 90. Goalkeeper makes an outstanding save as I'm yelling play on. Of course the attacking team now wants the foul and is claiming penalty. I was not about to give them a second bite at the apple but here's the rub. My AR indicates that the foul was in the box. Because it was a bang bang play and I wasnt sure it was definitely in the box, I applied the advantage and got burned....or maybe I got it right? Game 2: State over 30 cup final. Obviously very experienced players. Incident 1: Two on none breakaway with a defender chasing attacker with ball. As he enters box, keeper comes out to cut off angle and defender lunges at ball and toe pokes it away right to second attacker at the top of the 6 with an empty net in front of him. After ball is poked away, keeper bundles attacker over. Normally easy penalty decision made more difficult. Not a DOGSO. Attacker with empty net 6 yards out. Yup you guessed it. He hit the post. Of course after the miss they want the penalty call. Incident 2: Big strong attacker on breakaway. Defender chasing reaches out and tries to grab, drag and or pull him down. He stays on his feet and lays it off for his teammate to slot it in. If he had gone down, it was an easy DOGSO decision but he played through and got the goal. I did go back and caution the defender for UB but my AR suggested after the game that it was not neccessary since the foul was not reckless, merely desperate and it didnt work. Opinions?
Incident 1 is worth commenting upon. First of all, your AR should not signal anything here unless you blow the whistle and look for his input. As for the advantage, you made your decision, and everyone has to live with it. My opinion is that if you believed that the foul did not take place in the penalty you chose correctly. Otherwise, go with the foul and restart with the PK.
Yes and no. Restarts from the defensive end in many U-10's are hardly better advantage than playing the ball. Many restarts (with a big boot) are wayward and actually are worse than if you had possession through the foul. Good for the ref to at least give a chance. Its essentially a free play for the fouled team. Yes. And before going to caution the kid (and having to report the future Juvee to the the league in a report), I would alert the coach to either remove the player or warn him that if he doesn't take responsibility for his player's actions, I will be forced to do it (and yes that may mean even playing a man down).
You may want to go to http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/ and look for the answer on advantage in the PA. USSF guidance is that the only advantage that supercedes a PK is an actual goal. Based on that guidance, if you accept the AR information that it occured in the PA, the PK would be the right call in a USSF sanctioned match. Same. For better or worse, USSF tells us that only a goal suffices as the advantage being achieved on a PK situation. What was your caution for? There is no cautionable offnse for attempted DOGSO. So to give the card you need to either conclude that the foul was reckless or that the foul was tactical. You seem to concede it wasn't reckless. But your description sure sounds a lot like a deliberate foul to try to stop a goal -- which sure sounds tactical, in which case the yellow was proper.
Well, there's this:ADVANTAGE AND MISSED SHOT September 17, 2010 Question:This week’s Week 23 USSF Week in Review features Brian Hall discussing the concept of advantage in the penalty area (referring to the 8 minute mark of the audio portion). Mr. Hall states that advantage on a DFK foul by the defending team in its own PA can only occur if a goal is scored almost immediately; if not, the foul should be called an a penalty kick awarded. Here is my theoretical situation. Let’s say a GK commits a DFK foul on an attacker, who releases the ball and the ball rolls to a teammate who now has a shot from 2 yards away on the 8-foot by 24-foot goal frame. It’s a “can’t miss” opportunity. But amazingly, the attacker somehow manages to mis-kick the ball and chips it wide of the post or over the crossbar (this is not impossible… a search of “Missed goals” on YouTube will turn a few of these up). Clearly it behooves the referee to play advantage and give the golden scoring chance. But, according to Mr. Hall, once the shot misses the PK should be awarded. This is going to seem like double jeopardy for the defense, and will undoubtedly result in much angst and potential dissent from the defense. The missed goal is not the fault of the foul or any play by the defending team; it is due to the technical inadequacy of the attacker. I’m fine with following this directive, but I want to make sure that this is what is truly intended. I can sense situations developing in which we are following this direction and have to deal with subsequent dissent for the interpretation. USSF answer (September 17, 2010): For something over a year now, the Federation has espoused precisely the line expressed in the Week in Review. This line distinguishes between the concept of advantage anywhere else in the field and how the concept differs in the penalty area. What it comes down to is this: As regards procedures, the mechanics of advantage in the penalty area would be to keep your mouth shut and the whistle down, no matter what. No referee should ever be caught on tape giving the non-PA advantage signal for something that occurred inside the penalty area. As regards the substance of advantage, inside the penalty area advantage is defined solely in terms of scoring a goal “immediately” (i.e., within a play — roughly — a pinball-type carom off one player to another player and then into the goal would be included). If a goal is scored “immediately,” count the goal and card only if the original offense by the defender deserved it outside the context of S4 or S5 (Law 12 reasons for sending-off). If a goal is not scored, regardless of the reason, whistle and call for a penalty kick. But then there's this:APPLYING THE ADVANTAGE ON A GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY October 12, 2010 Question: Could you please clarify this for me? A player with an obvious goalscoring opportunity gets tripped by the goalkeeper outside the penalty area. The ball falls to a teammate who has a good chance to score. The referee allows the advantage. The teammate misses the net. Should the goalkeeper be sent off or just cautioned? USSF answer (October 12, 2010): If the referee applies the advantage and the advantage does not materialize in this case, no goal can be awarded. The referee gave the advantage for a foul outside the penalty area, the ball moves to a teammate of the fouled player. The teammate shoots and misses. Life is hard. The advantage has been squandered, because the teammate was not interfered with or otherwise discomfited by a member of the opposing team. Caution the goalkeeper and restart with a goal kick. ...and this:MISUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE February 22, 2011 Question: situation: a forward was supposedly fouled outside the box but the ref played the advantage & allowed the forward to play on. the fouled player maintained the ball & took an unimpeded shot on goal. he missed. the ref then called the ball back to where he said the foul occurred for a direct free kick. should the ref have called it back after he let the team play on til he shot on goal? the ref only made the call to bring the ball back after the player missed his shot. USSF answer (February 22, 2011): The referee cannot guarantee that a goal will be scored when he or she invokes the advantage. If this player had an unimpeded shot on goal, then the advantage has been fulfilled and the referee MUST NOT go back to the foul. Life is hard; shoot better next time. It appears to me that the main difference in the two basic situations presented here is whether the foul occurs inside or outside the PA. Foul outside the PA: Advantage/shoot/miss - bad luck. Foul inside the PA: Advantage (silent)/shoot/miss - PK. Now undoubtedly there are countless YHTBT nuances to all of this - but is this the basic breakdown? Upshot, essentially the otherwise same situation one foot inside the PA gets you two bites, one foot outside gets you only one? That would certainly help to clarify my thinking on what can be difficult calls in the heat of the moment.
I would say that pretty much sums up the existing USSF teaching. USSF is teaching that the PA is different -- very different -- when it comes to applying advantage. (I would put one nuance on your outisd the PA missed shot -- it comes out to "bad luck" only if, ITOOTR, the foul was not missed as a result of the lingering effects of the foul. In other words, getting off an off-blance, stumbling shot is not a "wasted" advantage, but a failure to materilalize that needs to be brought back. I woudl expalin it as: the shot available to the attacker needs to be a better scoring opportunity than the FK that would be awarded to say that the attacker had and wasted the advantage.)
What I'm getting out of this then is that in a PK situation and only then, two bites of the apple are allowed.
Pretty much. (The caveat would be, to extend the metaphor, the first bite has to be a good bite at the apple -- if the foul (outside the PA) left the attacker with a semi-bite that wasn't as good as the, then it doesn't "count" as a bite.) History note: I don't recall if the change was in the great re-write or before that, but in the "old days" there was no going back: if the R decided there was an advantage, that was it and there was no going back if the advantage didn't materialize. The change to the Law made it easier for the R to apply the advantage (or, potentially apply the advantage) in a lot more situations without the risk of egg on his face if it didn't work out.
Regarding your advantage question, I think you've answered it yourself. Calling advantage is supposed to benefit the team that has been fouled. If there is no benefit, as it seems to be the case here, then there is no justification for not calling the foul. The second incident could be a 'you had to be there' kind of moment. But in my experience referring at that level, even with skilled players, any notable contact to the face should be called. The players simply must learn to control their actions. Additionally, the referee should be able to spot the kids who are careless with their arms or hands early and deal with this (either by talking to the player or whatever is necessary) before it gets out of hand.
The best advantage you can apply to a team in its own defensive end getting pegged back is to stop play, allow them to get a breather and hoof the free kick out of their end.
No. "Two bites of the apple" is one of those concepts that leads us astray, and must be avoided. I think it is more accurate to stay that due to the proximity to the goal of the penalty area it is much easier to make advantage decisions because the ball has the possibility of entering the goal within the short period of time that a referee would wait to see if advantage materializes, and due to the fact that if advantage is not applied the restart is very likely to result in a goal. Nobody gets two bites at the apple in soccer.
