This was taken from Jim Allen's site where he answers practical questions submitted. For those unaware, Jim is an excellent national instructor and assessor; many regard him as the official "voice" of USSF in matters pertaining to refereeing. I wanted to direct attention to Jim's answer (B) and (C). There was a bit of discussion regarding the advantage clause before where the point of order referred to the ATR statement that Advantage only applies to Law 12. My position was that APO applied to law 12 but that the notion of advantage applied throughout all facets of the game. However, a situation was presented very similar to this one in that thread. Instead of the goalkeeper taking a second kick, the situation was a defender mis-throwing the ball from touch and then playing it into the feet of an attacker who scores a goal. The argument I presented was that the attacking team did not create the goal-scoring situation through their own actions, and thus the goal would be waved off and an IFK restart take place. This appeared to be the general consensus at that time. According to Jim's reply, the goal should indeed stand regardless of what the attacking team actually did. This is also not a condition of Law 12, but one of Law 8 -- the start and restart of play. It would seem my initial argument that advantage applies throughout all laws does apply, even when the attacking team does nothing to "earn" the advantageous situation. Is Jim's answers incorrect? Is it fair for advantage to apply when the team only scores a goal through the illegal folley of their opponents? Perhaps this might warrant investigation into a change in the laws?
Interesting question. If Jim stated that it was an official answer from the USSF. Then it has been reviewed by Klennitis and the rest of the referee committee. Honestly, I am surprised by the answer to the throw-in question. Maybe because it is a kneejerk response to blow the whistle immediately.
Re: Re: Advantage revisited, again It is true in the last thread some points were raised that were difficult to pin down. IN the EPL Uk's top flight I have clearly seen on 3 occasions APO signalled negating an offside infringement when the keeper clearly had posession. I also asked if the APO was specifically addressed to the ATR or whether IFAB or FIFA offered circulars outlining proceedures where National associations would thereby draft policy The concept of ignoring a clear technical infraction to allow an Advantage if that faux pas benifits the opposing team such as listed above. When Jims states invoking the advantage clause is that different than the APO?????????? Is it saying you allow play to continue but you would not signal it in this manner?????
Re: Re: Re: Advantage revisited, again Yes, this would be my interpretation. I allow advantage on offside, but do not signal APO (advantage play on). If players look to me I generally state the ball was not played or the keeper had it. No advantage gained on the offside.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Advantage revisited, again WHY? Why Not say advantage play on if it indicates to the players that you are in fact not going to stop the play be it a second touch or offside or a foul that you see? Why is the APO seemingly so restricted to law 12? If it is advantagous why not signal and say so??????
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Advantage revisited, again Well, I had mentioned in the other thread that APO is mostly a signal to keep the match under control. The fouls that APO apply to are direct assaults of a player towards his opponent and hence it is vital to address each one appropriately. Failure to address a penal foul leads to retaliation and fighting and general loss of control. Rather than just let the foul happen and say nothing when advantage applies, a signal was created to let the players know that you'll deal with the foul but aren't stopping play. I think it's important to keep this signal unique for Law 12 infringements, but I can see the referee yelling out "Play!" to a minor extent when other advantages appear. Things like simple misconduct, offsides, second-touches -- these are minor technicalities that help shape the flow of the game and set acceptable limits on what play is allowed. There's nothing in the rules that says the referee can't communicate verbally in advantage instances not pertaining to Law 12. The beef I have is that scoring in soccer is pretty difficult when you have two evenly-matched teams. Most of the time games are decided 1-0. How would you feel if your team won only because one of your mates happened to intercept an illegally-played ball off the foot of the opponent and got the shot off? It's not like your team really did anything to earn that goal, or the win. The outcome of the game shouldn't really rest on the defense not making a simple mistake like this example. Furthermore, the whole purpose of the laws is to restore fair play. How is it fair that a simple mistouch leads to a practical PK-like scoring opportunity? The rules say IFK for a second touch, it's a minor infringement and the opponent does get a small benefit -- possession and a free kick. They do not get a direct shot on goal, though, and certainly not one that is uncontested. The answers Jim provides just doesn't seem to make much sense to me in that there's nothing really "fair" about it. The punishment should fit the crime -- you don't get put to death for running a red light.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Advantage revisited, again I still consider the fact that Jim Allen's response pertains to LAW 12 where the keeper's activities are detailed and is not an endoresment that other laws or that throw in is to be thought of the same . In the USSF ATR it specifically states The advantage applies only to infringements of Law 12 (fouls and/or misconduct) and not to infringements of other Laws. For example, there can be no advantage during an offside situation, nor may advantage be applied in the case of an illegal throw-in that goes to an opponent. Now read LAW 5 point 11 The Referee allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time Try this site for some european perspective http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/advantag.htm Law 3 a sub illegally enters the FOP and tries to interfere with play but is unsuccessful and the attacker continues advancing towards the goal with a scoring opportunity. Law 8 At the kick off a player taps the ball ahead steps over the ball and back heels it however a streaking opponent has cut in behind and intercepts the ball and is off to the goal Law 11 (a)Following an offside signal by an Assistant Referee, the ball subsequently travels safely to the defending goalkeeper? Law 11 (b)Attackers despert to score are bunched around the goal. A shot comes in and just as the flag goes up a defender makes a great header up field releasing two attackers for a home free counter attack? Law 12 (a)The keeper accepts a pass back deliberately hit with the foot realizes and drops it down where it is promptly sloted home by a nearby attacker. LAW 12 (b)The keeper tries to kick the ball away after handling it but flubs it and uses his fist to punch it away from the attacker waiting to pounce the ball goes to another attacker with a very good scoring chance LAW 13 On a free kick the defender obviously encroaches but the ball deflects off him to an attacker who has a good scoring opportunity LAW 14 On a PK a defender encroaches the pK is taken keeper saves it and it travels right back to the attacker who has a tap in goal surely but misses the shot. Imagine the same senario but he scores? LAW 14 A pk is taken without the referee signal to start but clearly misses? Law 15 On a throw in the thrower makes a legal but weak throw back to his keeper. An onrushing attacker looks to intercept and go in and score a clear scoring opportunity, in panic the defender who just did the throw-in kicks it again but right to another attacker who still looks very likely to get the ball and perhaps score? LAW 15 ON a throw-in the ball travels directly to his own keeper who quickly tries to scoops it up with his hands but it slips out and goes to a nearby attacker with an excellent opportunity to score? LAW 16 The ball is kicked poorly outside the penalty area on a goal kick the defender who took the kick rushes out and tries to kick it again but it is cleared to an attacker who is clear on goal? There seems to be a distinguishing line of thought between the APO signal and the principle of advantage as per LAW 5. We know that if the restart is improper foul throw, kick -off the ball does not first go forward, no advantage is to be considered. Also if the ball is out of touch play must be properly restarted that point does not seem to be in disagreement anywhere. Is the opinion held by my colleagues in the UK different then my colleagues in the USA? It would appear to me there is a considerable distinction based on the comments I recieve on the law 12 issue. In essense are the incidents (as far fetched as you may think) fall under law 5 point 11 and can or should you worry about using the APO (Advantage! Play On! for any of them? Admittedly the PK restart is not really a true advantage just a sense of personal fairness really.
Hello everyone, Grizz, Statesmen, The top and bottom of this subject is down to the fact that the USSF have made a statement saying that APO applies only to law12. We do not have that in England so we have a different perspective to you guys over the pond. I strongly believe as with the thrower or the goal keeper if they infringe the LOAF then you are entitled to signal APO to make it clear to all concerned. Statesmen, regarding the throw in by the defender In these situations you are suggesting that it is unfair to penalise the players by allowing the goal as it was not achieved by "normal" attacking football. Consider this though. Two teams have been battling for 85 mins and both have run and fought hard. Surly the player taking the throw and messing up is because of the physical and emotional strain exerted throughout the game and unfortunately it has led to him having a lapse of concentration. I know it may seem a little unfair but from what you are saying then you would not let mistaken own goals stand. The game has many facets that effect the out come and we as referees are not there to make sure there is a fair result we are there to make sure the result is obtained fairly there is a subtle difference. Keep Smiling Dodgy Ref
That has to be one of the best depictions of the referee I've read. I'll have to remember that one and share it with the local clubs. Nicely said, dodge
possibilities Actually the ATR states THe word or slogan of APO is not mentioned. So when we raise the issue of advantage the hairs and the backs bristle and I get pointed to what it says here in the "ADVICE " to Referees (ATR) which is an official document detailing directives from the USSF national association. As often as I respectfully try to remind people that the world ocassionally sees things differently USSF referees can hardly be faulted for not lining upto say hmm that could be true. In the previous thread it was mentioned by Whipple if I recall about the confusion newer referees would have in differentiating the ideas we are discussing. When what we are taught is in conflict with others are taught being correct in law is not as important as keeping an open mind to possibilities. If the only distinction is that the APO as a mechanic should not be used except in LAW 12 I would see that differently then the way it is worded which is to infer that LAW 5 point 11 ONLY refers to LAW 12. So are the questions I proposed meerly restricted from saying APO in the USSF and I can still let play continue or must play be halted in each case?
Let me muddy the waters here. In the original post we had Cases B and C, where a goal is scored after a second touch infringement of Law 13. We are discussing "advantage," but would the word "trifling" do? The referee often decides that a small push/hold/charge has no real effect on play and therefore it is trifling. Can not the referee decide that a second touch has no real effect on play and therefore it also is trifling?
Tame Lion, This was a major part of the discussion in the earlier posting by Statesmen & Whipple. I can understand the logic of trying to use the words to negate weather advantge can be applied and again weather APO should be signalled. Grizz often uses the term "mechanics" with this situation I am not 100% sure what he means but can I just state my humble view of the whole scnario... If I see an infringement that I could possibly play an advantage from (that is for example a second touch from a free kick as opposed to an illegal throw in which I clearly could not apply advantage too.) Then I would allow play to develop and if I was happy I would then signal & shout "APO" The incidents that we discuss that are not from LAW12, then I would still do the same thing but because they are generally out of the normal I may be "thrown" a little and forget to signal the "APO" We must strive to help the players and if that means communicating then so be it. I think Grizz has it right when he states that it is only "Advice" to referees IT IS NOT MANDATORY. Keep Smiling Dodgy Ref
Well, unfortunately although the title merely states "Advice" for referees to follow, over here in the USA it might as well be considered Law. The instructions are pretty much expected to be followed to a T, just as the LOTG are. The only reason they really call it "advice" is because to refer to it as mandatory would indicate creating new laws to begin with, which USSF just doesn't have the authority to do. They might as well have done so however due to pressure to conform to the "advice" over here.
Statesmen, I feared it would be, we are also bound by similar principals in England put in place by the FA. It is only with common sense that things move forward and to be fair a referee can communicate to a player that he is allowing advantage without signalling it, after all the arm signal is really for the crowd and shouting "Keep playing" would achieve the desired effect without breaching the advice to referees. As you said the Laws definately "bend" Can we all agree that where an advantage could be played it is common sense to signal it as opposed to trying to skip round it I just feel that the USSF advice hinders referees rather than helping them. I certainly don't think it complicates instruction for new referees as it is black and white that advantage cannot be played from an incorrectly restarted game. Grizz has little faith in the advice been ammended and I would never seek to interfere but I hope this discussion has broadened all of our horizons on how we interpret and apply the LOAF Keep Smiling Dodgy Ref
Well dodge I'm not going to argue either way, right or wrong, if advantage should only be signalled in a specific instance. I mentioned before I like having the unique signal for Law 12 advantage due to its violent nature and match control. I don't see any problem with another signal, perhaps similar, being adapted for all other instances of advantage though. For now, I just yell out "Play!" and have had no comments by assessors, but I'll ask about it with the fella in charge of referee instruction over here. Maybe he can either give me a good response or get the ball rolling in looking further into the APO clause by USSF. Either way I think there definitely needs to be some clarification.