Interesting POTW discussing advantage and quick restarts. http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week-2017-week-8.php We have at times discussed on here what should or should not be considered in applying advantage. PRO interestingly includes: With the Red Bulls in a winning 2-0 position and this being in the 83rd minute, what is best for them? A ‘promising’ attack from which they could lose possession and be put under pressure on a counter attack is not as advantageous as a ceremonial free-kick which typically takes over a minute to restart. Very clear thoughts on an expansive view of context for deciding advantage. I don't think I've ever really considered using up time from the kick as a reason not to apply advantage. Also interesting, PRO suggests that there should be a law change that would allow a referee to permit a quick restart and come back to give a caution so that the offended team does not lose the opportunity to restart quickly. (They don't quite say that Elfath should have foregone the card to allow the restart on the particular play.)
This passage is very interesting: First, there's the implication that a reckless foul is a "mandatory" caution, but a foul that stops a promising attack is not "mandatory." I've never heard that. To start, it seemed like we were straying away from the term "mandatory" to begin with a few years ago. More to the point, though, I've never seen or heard an instruction that a caution for a reckless foul is more important than a caution for a tactical foul. Why couldn't the same principle apply for a reckless foul if the quick restart was available? Anyway... The second paragraph I quoted somewhat confuses an important point. Elfath couldn't have allowed play to proceed based on the advantage clause. The fouled player is blocking any play by his teammate and, moreover, he knows he's fouled and looks to grab the ball with his hands immediately, as Elfath whistles. Elfath had to call the foul. PRO is instead suggesting he could have "eaten" the card, for lack of a better term, and allowed the quick restart. But, first off, that's not "advantage." Perhaps more importantly, the ball was moving when the Galaxy tried to take the quick restart. But PRO doesn't address that. So if Elfath did what they were suggesting, which is to allow the quick restart and not give the card, he might have got critiqued for allowing an incorrect restart. Damned if you do, damned if you don't! If Elfath had ignored a card for a deliberate tactical foul and the Galaxy scored off a quick restart, I'm not sure it's accurate to assert there would be no complaints from the Sounders!
I think the LOTG and how they are applied to determine advantage or lack thereof should be the same regardless of the score and time.
But advantage itself is subjective. The score and time inherently factor in. You allow play to continue for "advantage" if the team who committed the offence would benefit from you calling the foul. That's what the Laws say. So, if due to the time and score, the team committing the offence wouldn't benefit from you calling the foul (and, let's say, having a ceremonial restart take up 30-45 seconds), then that's their problem. Again, it's all subjective though. Maybe you call the foul at midfield and don't allow advantage in a 2-0 game in the 83rd minute when a potential promising attack exists. But in a 4-0 game in the 90th minute, you allow advantage because it looks like it could lead to an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. It's art, not science.
Hmmm, now I had a game on Monday HS G V. home team was up 3-0 with about 75% possession in the visitors half. About the 80th minute, temperature of game was getting higher due to defense getting frustrated. Foul by visiting team about 5 yards outside PA, attacker stayed on her feet though. I still called the foul to slow game down and give them time to cool down. Was able to sell the ceremonial restart with the distance to the goal so no complaints. Are we saying this could also be applied? Because I take this into account when dealing with games that are pretty much decided and I need to bring temperature down.
100%, absolutely. Just from the description, a DFK 23 yards out is almost always better than an attacker managing to "stay on her feet" in that position, unless she's streaking directly toward goal with maybe one opponent left to beat at most. But leaving that aside, preventing a team from getting hacked constantly and potentially injured in the final few minutes of a game they are winning 3-0 is certainly to their advantage. And if you have managed the players well up to that point, it's very easy to sell that. Again, you don't take away an OGSO due to factors like this. But that's not what you--or PRO--are talking about.
wow. i wonder how far they will extend this concept.... are they then going to suggest refs should consider the aggregate score on two legged ties? goal differential for league standing? how tired the attacker is that they should save energy for later? Better for the team or for the player, which are usually but not always exactly the same? As for eating the card on a quick restart, I super duper hope we don't end up in a world where we sanction stuff after a subsequent restart. Just doesn't seem right.
Not in the current setup. But, that is exactly what Rejer proposed with his 'perhaps' that the law accommodate. Or the league could permit retroactive sanction, which is easier. This way, the referee keeps the spirit of game live, the offended-team gains that advantage, and the offender penalised (they get docked for accumulating so many yellows and such, right?) Perhaps Rejer talks with the league. Did anyone notice if at the quick restart, the ball was stationary? (turn off commentary, and review; it helps, but I cannot get high level video)