advantage

Its hard to say, generally its a few seconds. It depends on what the actual situation is which is why you'll see varied applications of the law.

 

2-3 seconds is the usual.

Keep in mind that whether or not play gets pulled back to the FK depends on whether the ref thinks the player lost it of his own accord - just stuffed it up - or if he was still being affected in some way by the original foul (say, it puts him into a position where a defender can challenge him easier as an indirect result of the foul)

 

Yeah, if the ball is lost as a result of the tug on the jersey or whatever, then a foul should be called. However, if the foul is trivial, does not impede the player's progress, and he winds up losing the ball because of a bad touch or whatnot, then no, the foul shouldn't be whistled.

 

The USSF has gotten less specific on this one just like the definition of "playing distance". Most of the time its 2-3 but it depends.

 

This also depends alot on whether you are actually calling advantage (which you may not want to do).

In other words:
-did you judge (in your mind) that a foul did take place that you would normally stop play for
-but you also decided (in that split second) that the fouled player team has significantly more to lose and the offending team significantly more to gain from stopping play
-and you made the advantage signal - arms forward. Signifying to everyone that a foul was committed, but you are playing advantage.

The last point is very important and is worth thinking on. By making the call, you do give yourself several seconds to watch and make sure that advantage does develop as you anticipated - and if not, then you can call it back. Sounds clear and easy...

But, what if everything went fine (advantage did in fact develop) for the first 3 seconds, but at about 10 seconds after the call, the other team intercepts a pass and scores a goal, or gets a foul committed against them for which you do stop play for FK, etc...

My point is this is a hard call to make and should not be done easily. I am sure there are many who can share lots of experiences (war stories ) where this call was made and it caused significant issues.

This is a legitimate tool/call for refs to use, but not an easy one to make.

 

One rule of thumb I've been told is whether the next play (either avoiding a defender, running a couple of yards free of pressure, or a pass to a player) came off as "expected" (by you). If yes, then the advantage is good. If not, call the play back.

It also depends on the teams. Some teams are very good at free kicks, so you tend to not play advantage unless it is clear cut. Other teams are much better at free flowing plays, so you tend to be more aggressive on the advantage call.

To get a good feel for advantage, you need to blow it a few times (reinforces the lesson )

 

You would mean like seeing a hard foul as attacker receives pass and enters attacking third, keeps ball and is one-on-one with keeper now. um, er, well yeah, you learn from those!!!

 

Advantage, when coaches even know of it, seems to be very missunderstood by many. I reffed a girls U13 game on day when the defender clearly committed a handling offense, however she knocked the ball right to a rushing attacker who took off with it right at the net from 30 yards out 1 on 1 with the keeper. As I was signalling advantage and calling it out loud, I heard the coach yell "you can't call that, advantage". However when the now breaking attacker missed the shot wide, the coach THEN wanted me to call it back and give them the DFK. Ummm, nope, not how it works.

 

Sounds to me like the coach was right. Advantage is given when a foul or attempted foul is unsucessful in stopping an advance on goal. It does not apply when a foul accidently gives an advantage to the other team. I might consider the handling trifiling and not call it but you cannot correctly call advantage for this one.

 

Sorry can't agree. Maybe I was vague. Team A is attacking and A1 sends a ball through to a breaking A2. Team B defender commits handling however as a result the ball ends up at the feet of A3 attacker who breaks in clear on the keeper. Advantage to A, no call signal advantage and play on. Now attack botches the shot and it goes wide. Coach of A now wants the handling called.

What do I have wrong in my understanding of advantage if this was not the right way to call this scenario? Calling the handling would reward B for the handling and take the advantage away from A.

 

NHRef as you describe the advantage has materialized and the handling offense is not punished. Only when the foul directly results in the shot missing do we consider it to not have materialized.

 

A foul is a foul whether it was accidental or not. As such advantage can certainly be applied. I don't believe any player intentionally provides an advantage to his opponent by fouling..

 

Yep. Really encourages you to wait a beat before blowing the whistle.

Of course then you also must learn in what situations where that hard foul has to be whistled down just for game control reasons (game control trumps advantage). Generally, this learning opportunity takes place courtesy of a card-filled game where you played too much advantage.

 

nhref - i agee that you properly applied atvantage and the attacking team blew the opportunity on its own. you can't reasonable bring it back and make the call now. you could card the defender, if warranted.

 

njref - you got it correct. the attackers merely blew the advantage they gained by your withholding the call. cannot bring it back now. but you could card the defender, if warranted.

 

Don't make this "game control trumps advantage" statement too black & white. If you have game control issues, it just has to be a BIGGER advantage to let you play it on. A guy gets cut off at the knees, that next touch better be a shot into the net for you to play advantage. But keep in mind, that you can still come RIGHT back and red card or yellow card the offender to get the game control part.

But out in the middle of the field where they just maintain possession without an imminent attack or some such thing - yes, game control trumps advantage.

 

So you're saying that if a defender headed it back to the keeper, the keeper went out of the box to catch it but fumbled it and it wen't to an attacker, in front of the open goal, who scores, you'd disallow the goal? Because you certainly couldn't say it was trifling!

sorry Mike, you're wrong.

It's used in any time where playing on will give a bigger advantage than blowing the whistle

 

Kev

What I was saying that if the game has gone or is going to hell, then advantage is trumped by game control (my reference to a card filled game - generally a sign of a game gone wrong). And generally this type of game has already degenerated to the point that it isn't fun for anyone - the players, you or the spectators. So the main goals are to a) try to regain control (difficult but then advantage can come out and play again) and b) (if a doesn't work) survive with as few casualities as possible. And often this means maintaining a death grip on the game.

For normal games, then I agree that coming back with a card after an advantage call is often a solid choice.

 

Its been very seldom that I can say I saw a call for game control over advantage. Its usually a call for "lack of". Lack of position, lack of consideration for AR input, lack of application of the Law that has caused the game to be in the dumper. I have seen two identical situations I described above that resulted in goals. This really makes you feel good when it happens in reality like we talk about in theory.

 

If the foul is such that retaliation is likely, you'd do better to not use advantage. I think that was the point. And if the team getting the free kick complains, you just explain that you saved them from a red card by not giving the fouled player a reason to slug the opponent.

 

10 minute refereeing is a good example where we're going to give match control more consideration than advantage, unless it's a really blatant advantage.