I was watching the US:CAN match and in the 74th min (I think), the US was fouled 3 yards outside of the box. We retained possession and the CR signaled advantage. My question centers on this. Although possession was maintained, it was maintained by a player 15 yards back collecting the ball among 3 defenders. His only play on the ball was to send it back across half. Certainly a set piece 21 yards out is a much greater benefit than possession in your own half. Law 5 simply states: The referee (emphasis mine) The ATR is contradictory (shocking) on this point: (emphasis mine). The second paragraph contradicts the first in that retaining control does not necessarily = actual benefit. More and more I am seeing referees calling advantage based solely upon possession being retained rather than an actual benefit. I think that is contrary to the intent of the law. Thoughts? NB: I have no idea why the fonts get so ********ed up when cutting and pasting on this new forum. I apologize.
Its always an interesting debate. Sometimes I think "possession = advantage" is used a bit too much. However, the time you blow it dead there, the team erupts "we had the ball ref play advantage".
I had the same thought when it occurred. Despite retaining possession, the only play available was a negative pass out of the danger zone vs the free kick on the ege of the 18. I think common sense and the spirit of the advantage clause would dictate that the free kick be given. Some have suggested that this is to maintain flow but IMO flow has to be sacrificed in this case.
The play occurred at 83:01. The ball had already been played back, with Will Johnson taking out Edgar Castillo immediately after, about 5 yards from the penalty area. The ball soon reached the halfway line. I agree with the overall sentiment. While this was a rather extreme example, this type of "advantage" call is made quite often, and often makes little sense.
I don't think the ATR is contradicting itself. Play advantage only if the offended team benefits. The offended team does not benefit ever if it doesn't maintain control. Control is a necessary factor to play advantage but not the sole factor. That's how I read it anyway.
The ATR states that advantage will be played when the team will actually benefit from not stopping and then goes on to state that you will be expected to apply advantage if possession is retained. Indirectly, the ATR is stating that retained possession is an actual benefit. I disagree that that is always the case.
I don't think the ATR is contradictory, just not as clearly written as it could be which is leading you to read more into the second section than is there. The point of the second section is to make clear that advantage is a team concept not a player concept. It needs to be read in conjunction with the first sentence that possession alone is not enough -- and, indeed, with the whole section, which sets out the Ps for when to apply advantage. The sentences you quote are misleading out of their context.
Kudos to Eastshire and Socal for not only providing good replies, but also pointing out the the lack of contradiction. I'll take a supporting angle. This statement... ...is inaccurate in that examples exist where both quoted standards, the LOTG excerpt and the ATR excerpt, would indicate advantage should be applied. Contradiction between the two would require that this would never be the case.
This is why American soccer is so bad. Any European or even S. American team, and the guy would have gone down pleading for a card and the players would be screaming for the foul. But no we just keep plodding along.
Does that make us bad or are we just more willing to accept contact as long as we can essentially keep playing? Good and bad are subjective. Just because the rest of the world thinks getting some contact and flopping around like a fish is the way to go doesn't make it better, just accepted.
Along the line of "advantage"...I was watching the college rugby 7's tournament over the weekend. They wisely (I believe) had the referees mic'd up for the event which helps those who are new to the sport understand what is going on. One thing I noted was that when advantage was being applied the referee clearly said so, and when the time during which he or she could call the play back for the infringement was concluded there was a clear call that advantage was over and play could not be called back. Not sure how or if that could be applied to our game, but I found it interesting that there was a clear vocal indication of both. And the time was typically longer than a couple of seconds to see how the play would develop out of it.
The referee in rugby can play advantage for up to a minute if he wants, there is no real set guideline for how long to apply it. We are told only to wait "a few seconds" before making a decision.
I would like to see open mics just to hear the swearing of all the players and the backlash it would receive. I think you'd see a lot of parents very upset that Captain America and Beckham are using such language when their children are around.
They would probable need to have a seven second delay so they could bleep the bad language. Then it would probably be like one of those reality shows they have on MTV where there is more foul language than not.
The heck with mic's on TV, I want them on the youth games, broadcast over the loudspeakers, so all the Mom's can see their angel isn't such an angel! I've been told multiple times "my son didn't say that" or "my son doesn't swear" or "my son says he didn't say that and he doesn't lie"