Advantage

i have very limited experience, so here's what i'd say/what i think. i will more than likely be wrong, but hey, i can try and be corrected, can't i?

a)doesn't advantage only apply to violations of Law XII? i'm thinkign this is the same as the PI thread that's going.
b)i really don't understand ur (2) scenario, so i can't really answer. sorry

 

Gtiz,

No - we are referees, not gods (minor dieties, maybe, but not gods).

Advantage is applied only to deliberate breaches of Law 12 and cannot be applied to an infaction such as offside or an outright violation such as a subtitute entering the FOP. This is because we would then be violating the laws ourself. We would be saying the Laws don't count, we are law, what we say goes. This would not only be a huge responsiblity, but we could quickly find ourselve in deep trouble.

Sherman

 

Re: Re: Advantage

There are instances when the ball is played forward and the attacking player makes a run from on offside position that the flag is kept down or the referee waives the flag off because the goalkeeper has the ball and the forward had no chance to make a play given his distance from the ball. This is the only instance I can think of when I would allow play to continue and not signal or whistle for offside. As such I would call it playing advantage though technically it is not in the strict meaning as applied to fouls under law 12.

 

Griz,

As pointed out by others, when you allow the keeper to punt the ball after he has picked it up even though your AR may have flagged a player for offside, you're not applying advantage, you've simply decided that the player in the offside position didn't become involved and judged that the offside offense didn't occur.

As for your second situation, as we discussed in another thread about a substitute coming onto the field of play and affecting the play, you don't have the option of applying advantage there. If there's outside influence, you have to stop play and deal with it.

However, if the substitute coming onto the field didn't get into the play and didn't affect the attacking player going to goal, I'd just choose to have a little selective vision and not see the substitute come onto the field until the play was finished. Then I'd card him/her.

If they affect they play, then as we decided in your other thread -- two cautions, entering without permission and unsporting behavior for affecting the play.

 

Agreed. That is fair to the attacking team.

 

Advantage can be applied to ANY breach in the laws of the game, not just law 12.

As it says in Law 5: The referee "allows play to continue when the team against which an offense has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalizes the original offense if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time."

Note that it says any offense, not any foul or misconduct,

Any referee that immediately stops play when a subsititute enters to deliberately interfere with an obvious goal scoring opportunity without allowing the attacker a chance to score that goal should give himself a red card for DOGSO. You better believe advantage applies, it's for this exact reason the rule exists.

Think about another version of this situation. The attacker is on a clean break for the goal with an obvious scoring opportunity. So what does the defense do? Just have a sub step a few feet onto the field and getting the referee's attention. According to what you guys are saying, the referee MUST stop play and administer the yellow card, and restart the game with a dropped ball at wherever the attacker was. If this was the correct application of the laws, then any time an attacker is about to score a goal you would see the opponent send in a bench player illegally to stop the goal from happening.

Law 18, anyone?

 

Statesman,

From ATR m5.6:

"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. "

It is important to underestand that "Advantage" or "APO" is not the greneral concept of advantage (note the small "a") but rather a signal given during play, which recognizes that a foul or misconduct has been committed by a player, seen by the referee, but the referee is not going to stop play because such as stoppage might be more disandvantageous to the offended player, or advantageous to the offendee, but based upon the outcome, the referee is still reserving the optio of whislting the retart.

So, while many of the decisions you suggest might be common sense, or covered under V8, they are not covered under Advantage Play On. APO has a specific application, but let's not foget that it is not the only manner in which we manage a game.

 

That's correct whipple, but as you pointed out advantage can occur in any situation whether it's a specific APO instance or not. When a referee waves down a flag for offside when offside did occur, it's a case of advantage. When an AR drops a flag after the defense has full possession of the ball after an offside infringement, that is advantage.

When a player steps onto the field illegally in hopes the referee will stop a GSO to administer the caution but the referee ignores him, that is advantage.

APO is one thing, the infringing team gaining an advantage, through whatever offense, by the ref stopping play is another. Just because these other instances don't require a specific signal on behalf of the referee does not mean the advantage clause no longer applies.

 

No, not true. Either there was no offside infraction, (ie position but no involvement, or one of the other four cirteria was not met) and the referee waves off the flag, because in his opinion an offiside infraction did not occur and it is his call, or he missed it. His bad.

It there is doublt, the refere should not call the infraction, but if a referee knowingly sees an offside infracton and fails to stop play, because he is waiting to see the outcome of the play, he is in big time trouble.

Again, this is not advantage, but the proper mechanic for a missed signal.

No, this is the law. Unless the peseon entering the field actually interferes with play, and then play must be stopped and restarted with a dropped ball, the ther areferee allows play to continue and deals with the msconduct at the next stoppage. Again, this has nothing to do with advantage.

I know what you are trying to say, and realize you mean well, but what you are descibiing here is not the advantage clause but V8, Law 5, IBD 8, which was removed from the laws when they revised the book in 1997, but is still cited in the ATR.. This is the principal of not stopping play for doubtful and trifling breaches of the law. It was lelft out, not becasue it was no longer applicable, but becuase it was felt in Switzerland, that it was so obvious that it need not be said.

We should not, however, confuse the two.

Sherman

 

No whipple, I am stating precisely what I'm stating. I know what you are referring to and I'm not the new referee who is unfamiliar with the difference between advantage, Advantage Play On, and a trifling infringement. You and I most likely are agreeing to the same concept, just using different word choice to express it. I am not one to argue over semantics.

When a player is guilty of offside but the defense collects the ball, is it not more advantageous for them to keep with the flow of the game and distribute the ball down field without a stoppage?

When a player steps onto the field illegally in an attempt to halt play, would it not be more advantageous for the attacking team with a goal scoring opportunity to capitalize on it rather than stopping play and restarting with a drop ball after administering a caution?

Both of these cases are not trifling breaches of the law, whipple. They are the scenarios I described in my previous post. Missed calls are always a possibility but I am not referring to any.

This is incorrect, take another look at Law 3.

 

Statesman,

You are right in that if a substitute enters play Law 3 suggests that play must be stopped (and depending on whether it is a named subsititute or someone else the restart is a DB or an IFK), however, in the ATR and in some of the instruction we recieve, while the restart, should we stop play, is carved in stone, the circumstances under which we do stop play is left to the referee. Note that much of the language is preceded by "If the referee..."

This is not, however, decided on the basis of advantage, but of Law 5, IBD 8, as well as just plain common sense. The issue here is more than semantic. It does make a difference. It is an area where we must be careful that referees do not get creative or play fast and loose with the Laws.

The reason the advantage clause only applies to breaches of Law 12 goes all the way back to 1863 and the formation of the game, and probably were defined aroud 1891 when the Laws were first standardized. Remember that soccer/football is a players game.

For nearly half of its history, the referee did not call fouls and misconduct at all. Matches could be very bloody affairs. If a player was fouled, and disadvantaged, it was up to him or his teammates to call for the stoppage, a decision by the referee, and the restart.

There is a very old saying that Rugby is the sport for butes, played by gentlemen, and soccer is the sport for gentlemen played by brutes.

The point is that when the board finally gave the referee power to stop play, they did so with specific limitations so that we would not destroy their game, or influence the outcome. At the core of this is that we may not do anything to change the game with respect to that which might give an advantage to one team over the other. This is why for such things as an offside infraction, the number of players, we are required to call the infraction if it occurs, without regard to advantage at all. WE msut be totally consistent.

In other words, not only does the advantage clause not apply outside of Law 12, where it specifically does apply, but neither does the general concept of advantage, because we are limited to the duties and powers of a referee and not the omnipotent wisdom and power of God.

I also recognize that neither of us are novice referees, but a lot of people who read this are,and we must make certain very clear distinctions for their benefit,and not allow ourselves to become too creative or take liberties with the laws or spirit of the game.

Remember, as referees, we, of all people, must not interfere but protect the integrity of the sport and rights of the players, not to suit ourselves, but for the good of the game. That's why we get the big bucks.

 

Please let's stop arguing about advantage and offside. It is in black and white on the 'Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game' 2001 edition published by US Soccer. On section 5.6 ther 3rd paragraph 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."

If you want to read it go to http://dps.altdc3.va.twimm.net/USSF/doc/content/doc_6_41.pdf

 

Whipple, I don't think I can really get through to you. Years of training about the IBD8 of Law 5 and how it is set apart from APO and all that seems to have closed your mind.

This is not a difficult concept, because it is one we apply to every decision we make (whether consciously or not). When you make a decision, you weigh out the pros and cons. The advantages and disadvantages. As a referee, if the opponent of the team who infringes the laws is gaining more of an advantage from NOT stopping play, in WHATEVER the case, then you don't stop play. If it would be more advantageous for play to stop and the proper restart taken, then you go ahead and stop play. Either way, you are out there to determine what ultimately will work out better for the players, what would be more fair.

Forget about the APO and Law 5 IBD8. Step outside of the box for a second and look at the bigger picture here. I'm not referring to advantages in the terms that USSF has drilled into the heads of United States referees over and over (don't forget there's a whole world out there), but common sense in the decision making process.

If it would be more advantageous to the game for the referee to not make a call, don't make the call! You can always deal with the administration afterwards when the time is appropriate if that's the case. No referee should adhere to the laws of the game so anally and to the letter that the game itself is destroyed. That applies for EVERY call, not just law 12.

 

Andyrey, you're referring specifically to the APO clause that USSF instructs of referees. I have never once mentioned in my posts that APO was what I'm talking about. There's a much larger perspective on how we make decisions as referees and the impact they have on play. There is an Advantage signal and instruction that applies to very specific incidents of Law 12. However, there are advantages and disadvantages to every call made by the referee. When I speak of the advantages of letting play continue in this thread, I am NOT referring to APO. I hope I've made this clear enough.

 

Statesman, I agree with you, but 'Advantage' has a very strict meaning in soccer. When we fail to call an offside because the ball went to the keeper, is not because of advantage, but because of APO states

'5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
"The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators."
(Former International F.A. Board Decision 8 to Law V, now considered an integral element of the "Spirit of the Game.")'

In this case we are not really calling advantage, and the proof of that is that the advantage signal (arm seep forward and 'play on') should never be given for this situation.

I know that I am splitting hairs, but I see too many referees give the advantage signal for situations that they choose not to call an infraction that is really not 'true advantage' call. We need to make sure that referees understand what 'advantage' is as defined in law V and clarified by US Soccer in the APO.

 

My ponit is that what you call advantage is in fact, covered in the following statement:


The Laws of the Game are intended to
provide that games should be played with as
little interference as possible, and in this view
it is the duty of the referees to penalize only
deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant
whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches
produces bad feeling and loss of
temper on the part of the players and
spoils the pleasure of the spectators.

I do not dispute your point that it is a matter of that which can be said to be advantagerous or disadvantageous to the game, but that the use of the word "advantage" in this context, though not wrong, could be confusing to one who is not so well versed in the laws or experienced in their application.
Further, the Laws already cover every one of the contingencies you have lumped under your use of advantage, under doubtful, trifling, or Law 5 Clause 6 - stops, suspends or terminates ... at his discretion for infringements...

Less experineced refrees have a hard enough time properly applying advantage and the rest of the laws without being confused by overlapping the terminology or lumping it inappropriately. Worse, I encounter some very experineced people who carry whistles who have made a career of their own interpretations of the laws, and some have even built little empires to spread their home grown officiating errors to others in thier community, not only on their mistaken laws, but on mechnics etc. as well.

As an assignor for the higher level referes doing youth competition, I inherit a lot of these people. They have to be re-educated, and some are beyond my help. Let's not confuse them any more than we have to.

I respect adn value many of your positions so I hope we can find some common ground on this.

Sherman

 

Whipple, as I said I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing on the subject itself. The only point I really take issue with is where you state these occurances described fall under the trifling and doubtful breaches decision (and Andyrey).

First off, when is offiside ever deliberate? In all my years of officiating I've never seen what could really be considered a deliberate offside infringement. Sometimes (at higher levels), the players accidentally find themselves offside but may get involved with play hoping the referee will not catch it. More often than not players become so involved with the action that they do not catch their own offside position until it is too late, or are completely unaware to begin with. According to IDB 8 the player must put himself offside deliberately, which we know is not accurate.

As far as a substitute illegally entering the pitch, this is not a trifling breach of the law either. He is not accidently stumbling out onto the field only to quickly realize his folly and return to the bench. He is indeed placing himself on the pitch as a deliberate attempt to stop play, draw the caution, but also gain a drop ball restart. In the original scenario, he even attempts to involve himself in the actual play by chasing down the attacker. The only reason play is not stopped is because doing so would be disadvantageous to the attacking team, as they have a clear shot on goal. This is why I state the decision to not stop play falls under the advantage clause, even if it is not part of the instructions for APO.

I suppose it might be beneficial to explain the reasoning behind APO itself, just to ensure we are on common ground in that respect. Do you know the reason why the ATR makes sure to state "Advantage, Play On!" refers specifically to Law 12? Because Law 12 are acts of violence (of varying levels of course, with different levels of discipline) or dangerous play from one player to another. There is the potential for injury, and is a direct attack. If the referee were to say nothing or give no indication he saw the foul, how would that affect his control of the match? The players would interpret the referee's non-call in either 1 of 2 ways: he simply missed the foul and is not paying attention, or he allows that type of play to commence. Either way, it leads to a loss of control and potential retaliation if the foul is not dealt with.

On the other hand, if the referee sees it would not be beneficial to stop play from the foul and INDICATES this to the players by giving a signal and shouting out (just in case the players don't see him) "ADVANTAGE, PLAY ON!" it lets the players know the referee did indeed see the foul, and under difference circumstances would indeed stop play. Subsequent shouting that a player is in the book will also let all involved be aware the referee will take care of the administrative requirements at the next stoppage (showing the card).

The APO clause included in the ATR is a tool for match control as advantage pertains to Law 12 infringements. This does not disqualify the advantage clause of Law 3 to be applied in other facets of the game. HOWEVER, it does mean that the signal and shouting of "Advantage, Play On!" is NOT required in any other instance where the advantage clause of Law 3 is indeed applied by the referee.

 

Re: great thread superb effort

Ah, first let me clarify I was indeed meaning to refer to Law 5, but in my haste I started hitting Law 3 in error. My apologies!

Grizzlierbear, in reply to your scenario I would indeed stop play. The reason being is because before the infringement the attacker was not in a position of advantage or potential goal scoring. It was solely through the illegal actions of the defender that the goal scoring opportunity is created. Since the laws state the proper restart in restoring fairness is an indirect free kick for the opponent, by allowing play to continue you would in fact be punishing the defense more severely than the laws require (by giving the attacker an uncontested shot on the goal through no action of his own).

The way I understand advantage depends on the scenario. If the attackers, through their own skill and merit, create such a situation that they have the advantage and potential to score a goal to the extent the defenders deliberately break the laws in an attempt to halt play, then advantage may apply. If the actions of the defending team does indeed stop their opponent, then play must be stopped. However, if the deliberate breach of the laws does NOT stop the attacking team from finishing their hard-earned attempt at a goal then advantage is applied.

In the case that the defenders breach Law 12 in such circumstances, the referee uses a signal and shouts "Advantage, play on!" as described by the ATR. In no other case is this signal to be used.

The reason I would stop play in the scenario above is simply because the attackers gain that advantage not through their own merits. They didn't "earn" that direct unopposed shot on goal. They do, however, earn an indirect free kick at the spot where the defender plays the ball.

 

Definitely a situation in which you would stop play. At the point of the infraction, there was no possible advantage. Where the ball went from there wouldn't matter. I would already be blowing the whistle. Similarly, if the defender was to throw the ball into the goal using one hand, you wouldn't call advantage and a goal, it would be an illegal throw-in. To the best of my understanding, the attacking team must create the situation in which they would benefit from advantage, like what Statesman says. In essence, this kind of call is mandatory.

 

Hello Grizz, Statesmen & whipple.

I have read with interest the various posts and comments made by all of you.

It was me that instigated this discussion from a post that Grizz made on the Football Referee discussion boards.

What I have realised from this is that once we are taught something then it is very difficult to accept when someone comes along and offers a different view point. In England I have discussed this at lengths with various colleagues and we have no convention of only applying advantage to LAW12.
there are some simple criteria which must be adheard to for an advantage to be played but the crux of the argument on your side of the pond seems to be weather or not you should signal the advantage as opposed to weather or not an infraction as occured.
Any way the consensus of opinion of my colleagues is that if an offence has occured during play then the referee has the option of signaling (ie APO)that the team which has been penalised against should play on as there is an advantage to be gained by not penalising them.

I look forward to further discussions...

Keep Smiling
Dodgy Ref