Advantage!

[dodgy Ref]

We had a number of excellant discussions on the advantage clause and weather this could be applied to Law 12 only or weather it could be applied to other Laws.

I know that USSF ATR states that it can only be applied to Law 12.

I can now prove that this is in contradiction to FIFA

FIFA Q & A 3.10 states that if a team with only seven players has a player delibrately remove himself from the FOP that
"We should apply advantage"

I think this is quite clear and would be interested in Tamelions, Whipples, and Statesmans views on this.

Keep Smiling
Dodgy Ref

[BigBubba]

You need to stop the game until he comes back on.

[pkCrouse]

Dodgy, I think 3.10 does in fact refer to law 12. The Q&A is (I think) saying that you don't stop play to administer the caution for the misconduct (a law 12 violation) if that stoppage would further disadvantage the opponent. Clearly it would in the example used in 3.10. It is not necessary for the referee to stop play if a team temporarily fails to field 7 players, such as when there is an equipment or blood issue that can be rectified in a reasonable period of time. Likewise, a player who deliberately leaves the field of play (even without the referee's permission) has not, at least at that moment, necessarily permanently left his team short-handed. I understand what you thought you were seeing in 3.10, but I don't think it supports your conclusion.

[dodgy Ref]

No That is not correct if that were the case then that would be under Law 12 for Leaving the FOP without permission as in order to nullyfie an offside or similar. This scenario is a player clearly trying to circumvent an attack by reducing his team to six players and FIFA clearly state you apply advantage.

Keep Smiling
Dodgy Ref

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref
... then that would be under Law 12 for Leaving the FOP without permission as in order to nullyfie an offside or similar. ... Good response - I'll try to return the volley until others jump in. ;)

3.10 involves both law 3 and law 12. They had to pick one or the other section to print it under - they just happened to pick law 3. Your reference to the offside issue is a good analogy. The Q&A deals with it under law 11 (11.3), but clearly the focus is on the misconduct covered by law 12. Again, they had to pick one section or the other to print it in, so they picked law 11.

(Now, having said that, I must admit that it surprises me that 3.10.3 doesn't advise the issuance of a caution at the next stoppage. Definitely weakens my argument!)

[BigBubba]

You're not being clear about the situation. Did the player just jump out to get a positive call or did he remove himself for an extended period of time? I thought you meant the later, which should stop the game. If it was a situation where he is trying to avoid a call, play advantage and then caution the player.

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by BigBubba
... Did the player just jump out to get a positive call or did he remove himself for an extended period of time? ... Unfortunately the example in Q&A 3.10 isn't that clear. It simply says: "When the team consisting of 11 players is about to take a shot at goal one of the players of the team of 7 deliberately leaves the field of play." No mention of whether he sticks around to watch, or high-tails it out of the stadium, or jumps right back on after the shot.

[Tame Lion]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref
No That is not correct if that were the case then that would be under Law 12 for Leaving the FOP without permission as in order to nullyfie an offside or similar. This scenario is a player clearly trying to circumvent an attack by reducing his team to six players and FIFA clearly state you apply advantage.

Dodgy,

The player who leaves the FOP does not reduce his team to six players - he is still a player of record. The minimum number of players required by Law 3 (actually it is suggested -- national associations could do otherwise) has not been infringed.

But he is guilty of misconduct described either explicitly in Law 3 under the phrase "any other infringement" or implicitly in Law 12 under USB. However, all misconduct is defined in Law 12, entitled "Fouls and MISCONDUCT". For example, a caution is something that if you get two of them, you get sent off and you don't play anymore in that match.

Thus this action is an infringement defined in Law 12 and advantage could (and should) be applied. I would expect the misconduct to be USB, but that is not important.

[dodgy Ref]

Listen Guys PLEASE

You are trying to win an arguement that is cast in stone.

FIFA Q&A 3.10 is obviously aimed at a player delibrately leaving the FOP to null the game because their team is down to six players it has nothing to do with Law 12 weather it be Leaving FOP or weather it be USB.
Tame Lion I have discussed this with you a number of times and thrown a number of spanners in the USSF ATR on Advantage I think now is the time to accept that the Spirit of the LOTG insist that advantage should be applied where ever an indiscretion has been committed against a team. I am on a side that has never had this instruction so why should we be so strict as to apply it when it so blatently flies in the face of the spirit of the LOTG. Can the USSF not accept that they are incorrect in trying to simplyfie the "advantage" to Law 12. I can accept that in general it is an easier way to teach the basics but once we can cut the mustard I think we should be delving deeper into the fairness of these indescretions. Lets not be shackled by what we are taught as the basics.

I hope I do not sound to over the top about this, I do not mean to and I am open to all arguments but I sincearly feel that USSF refereees are told certain things and they seem unwilling to listen to other view points at any cost.

We must all learn from each other!

Keep Smiling
Dodgy Ref

[Alberto]

Let's be clear and state the the USSF Advice to Referees states advantage is applied in the case of fouls and misconduct. Stepping off the field of play when playing 7 in order to have the match abandoned still will result in the advantage being invoked during the attack by the opposing team, since the players action is a cautionable offense. I see no contradiction between the ATR and the Q & A.

Here is the exact text from FIFA regarding the Q & A article 3 (the players), question 10 states:

taken from the Q & A of the FIFA website
The Board is of the opinion that a match cannot be considered as normal if one of the teams is playing with less than 7 players. In a competition where such a limitation applies, a team consisting of 11 players is playing against a team with only 7. When the team consisting of 11 players is about to take a shot at goal one of the players of the team of 7 deliberately leaves the field of play.

Does the referee have to stop play immediately?

No. The advantage clause should be considered.

If a goal is scored must he allow it?
Yes.


What further action should the referee take?
If the player who has left the field of play fails to return for the kick-off after the goal is scored, the match is abandoned and a report sent to the appropriate authority.

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref
... I think now is the time to accept that the Spirit of the LOTG insist that advantage should be applied where ever an indiscretion has been committed against a team. ... Can the USSF not accept that they are incorrect in trying to simplyfie the "advantage" to Law 12. ... I hope I do not sound to over the top about this, I do not mean to and I am open to all arguments but I sincearly feel that USSF refereees are told certain things and they seem unwilling to listen to other view points at any cost.

First of all Dodgy, there is a huge difference between being willing to listen to and consider other viewpoints, and accepting them as being correct. Just because you have not convinced us that the ATR (which is authorized by FIFA) is wrong, doesn't mean that we aren't being reasonable.

Secondly, you are mixing terms and phrases even in this thread. You say we should apply the advantage clause "when ever an indiscretion has been committed against a team". Well, your own words squarely put it into the realm of law 12. The player stepping off of the field of play cannot be considered to have commited "an indiscretion against the other team" unless you consider it to be either a foul or misconduct. If we stick to your insistence that Q&A 3.10 must only be viewed in the context of law 3, the player is actually committing an indiscretion against his own team - he's making them play shorthanded temporarily. We already know that the laws do not provide for the game to be abandoned simply because a team temporarily falls below 7 players on the field of play, and since the player left without the referee's permission, he technically is still on the field. There would be no reason to even consider stopping play in the example given in Q&A 3.10 unless the issue being considered is the accompanying law 12 misconduct.

The problem with extending the advantage clause beyond law 12 is that you then have a real problem deciding where to draw the line. For example, the ball is last played by a Blue midfielder. On an errant drop he sends it far down the touchline into his own defensive third. A Red wing sprints down the line to collect the ball and will have a clear breakaway toward Blue's goal. However, just before he gets there, the ball rolls ever so slightly (but completely) into touch and then back onto the field of play. Are you suggesting that the AR should keep his flag down and allow Red to play the ball because it would be more advantageous than to stop play and award Red the throwin? I'm sure you aren't, but where are you going to draw the advantage line between that absurdity and law 12 if you say it goes beyond law 12?

[dodgy Ref]

PK,

Yes your right I would not look to apply advantage there but that is not what I am refering to.

It is in cases as in 3.10 and more importantly when players are flagged for offside or if they play the ball twice at a restart to stop a player from taking possession etc

Keep Smiling
Dodgy Ref

[Alberto]

So what is the contradiction between the ATR and the LOTG or the Q&A?

[dodgy Ref]

It was always stated before that USSF ATR was that "Advantage can only be applied to Law 12"
As I have said before I do not have a copy of USSF ATR and have asked for a copy to be made available if any body has it.

That was the statement that initiated the whole discussion.

If you could accept that "misconduct" can be committed against the other LOTG as in say an assistant flagging for offside and the referee acknowledging the flag and signalling advantage to the defending team as it has broken into attack.

This is the clearest case for allowing advantage to be applied across the LOTG rather than only Law 12

I am not so sure that describing an offside as misconduct is good advice but it would at least create some common ground between USSF and the LOTG on the advantage issue.

Keep Smiling
Dodgy Ref

[deep-throat]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref
As I have said before I do not have a copy of USSF ATR and have asked for a copy to be made available if any body has it.

http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/Advice2001.pdf

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref
...If you could accept that "misconduct" can be committed against the other LOTG as in say an assistant flagging for offside and the referee acknowledging the flag and signalling advantage to the defending team as it has broken into attack.

This is the clearest case for allowing advantage to be applied across the LOTG rather than only Law 12

I am not so sure that describing an offside as misconduct is good advice but it would at least create some common ground between USSF and the LOTG on the advantage issue....

I don't understand what you mean when you suggest "that 'misconduct' can be committed against the other LOTG as in say an assistant flagging for offside...". Clearly neither the player nor the AR engages in "misconduct" by committing an offside infraction or raising a flag. To apply the term "misconduct" to a simple offside infraction would be a gross misapplication of both the LOTG and SOTG.

I assume you are referring to situations where the AR flags for offside but the CR waves him down because the defense recovers the ball. We've had many discussions on this board concerning that scenario, but in every example it has always been a situation where the offside infraction never truely develops. The AR sees the attacking player in an offside position and as the ball goes toward that player, the AR raises the flag. When the CR sees that the defensive player, rather than the offside attacker, has in fact gained clear possession and control, the CR waives off the AR's flag. This is not a situation where the CR applies the advantage clause - it is simply a matter of the offside infraction never being consumated. It may seem like we're splitting hairs, but we're not. There is a clear difference between saying that an infraction didn't occur on the one hand, and saying that it did occur but that it would be more advantageous to the opponent to allow play to continue uninterrupted on the other.

[whipple]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref

If you could accept that "misconduct" can be committed against the other LOTG as in say an assistant flagging for offside and the referee acknowledging the flag and signalling advantage to the defending team as it has broken into attack.



DR,

What are you saying?

Yes, Law 12 describes how we deal with fouls misconduct related to ALL other Laws in the body we called The Laws of the Game, or, on your side of the pond, The Laws of Association Football. We also share Law 5 which states that the referee "allows play to continue when the team against which an offense has been comitted will benefit from such an advantage ..."

In every country in the world, advantage is instructed as to be applied soley to offenses against opponents. In the LOTG and LOAF, only Law 12 deals with offenses againt opponents. Therefore, only the offenses covered in Law 12 would logically apply to advantage.

Now, of greater interest, Dodgy, is why is it, do you think it is that we are instructed, and to my knowledge on both sides of the pond (my mentor some 30 years ago was a former EPL ref), that the advantage clause must never be applied to an offside infraction. The idiom "two drinks from the well" should give you a little hint.

Have a day,

Sherman

[dodgy Ref]

Deep Throat,

Thank you for the link, I am trying to download them as I write, I notice the 2001 in the link, does that mean they are out of date?

Either way I am sure I will find them usefull and intuitive.

PK, Whipple,
I know we have had these discussions about an assistant flagging for offside but to say that the offside doesn't materialise is, I think, bending the interpretation far beyond breaking point. We see it on a regular basis in the EPL that an assistant puts his flag up for the offside player. At this point the player is active and the team have gained an advantage but after that the ball breaks free to a defender at this point the Referee acknowledges the flag and waives it down and then signals advantage to the defending team. If not the defending team may well stop because they see the AR flag and pick the ball up.
We are somewhat starting to go over the same old ground. No doubt it will rear its head again in the future.

Keep Smiling
Dodgy Ref

[Gary V]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref
If you could accept that "misconduct" can be committed against the other LOTG as in say an assistant flagging for offside and the referee acknowledging the flag and signalling advantage to the defending team as it has broken into attack.

This is the clearest case for allowing advantage to be applied across the LOTG rather than only Law 12


This is not a case of "advantage". Even if the attacker has made a move toward play, he did not affect the outcome of the play (the defender or keeper got the ball and cleared it). Therefore the attempt at participation by the offside-positioned player was interrupted, and consequently there was no offside offense.

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by dodgy Ref
Deep Throat,

Thank you for the link, I am trying to download them as I write, I notice the 2001 in the link, does that mean they are out of date?
The ATR is only revised and re-issued every few years. In the interim, USSF releases Memoranda or Position Papers with changes or clarifications in how things should be interpreted.

Here is the page on the website listing all the position papers since the 2001 updates to the ATR.

http://www.ussoccer.com/referees/default.sps?iType=220&icustompageid=230