USSF stance revised by Jim Allen If you recall a few weeks back I posted a question replied to by Jim Allen on his website, http://www.drix.net/jim/. It stated that if a keeper performed a goal kick, only to kick it to the feet of an attacker after it rolled outside the PA, advantage is applied should the attacker have a scoring opportunity. It also stated that if the goalkeeper kicked the ball into his own goal after rolling outside the PA, advantage is applied and the goal is good. This question has been updated to reflect our original conclusion -- advantage cannot be applied to technical fouls such as a second-touch. Therefore the referee would stop play and award an IFK at the point where the keeper played the ball a second time, regardless of the outcome.
Posted this at same time as whipple, but for some reason am unable to delete. Alberto, think you could toss one? ### Mod note. ### No, I'll keep both. - Tom O.
Re: USSF stance revised by Jim Allen The USSF position is not one that I fully comprehend but they are adamant that only LAW 12 applies there are second touch violations within LAW 12 whereby advantage could be granted according to the ATR but they are with the hands THe distinction of the hands versus the foot is to me mind boggling but then so is the FIFA directive that suggests a ball stopped by holding a shinguard is only an INDFk CAution and show a yellow for USB and not a send off for the keeper. Yes I am aware it is considered a hand extension it still is against the principles, spirit and intent of all laws in the game in that it unfairly denies a goal at least if the shot was stopped we could apply advantage right. LOL Each time I read LAW 5 and the advantage clause then return and reread the ATR advantage advice stating only law 12 I do not see how this was arrived at? Can some explain this or at least try? LAW 5 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 ATR 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.
According to another email in the list that it appears both whipple and I belong to, the application to Law 12 only is accurate. I double-checked in my soccer history books and was able to confirm the rationale: The laws were written in two categories: crimes against the opponent (or opposing team as we say today), and crimes against the game. Law 12 is a list of all the crimes against the opponent or opposing team. All other laws are crimes against the game as they describe how the game is actually played. The advantage clause of Law 5 specifically states that the referee only allows play to continue when the team against which an offense has been committed will benefit. In other words, it only applies to Law 12 as all other infringements are not committed against the opposing team.
points to ponder Sounds good Statesman Then in the examples where the illegal handling apply to the keeper. I assume we are in agreement? Mr Allan has indicated that if the keeper had touched the ball with the hands illegally instead of kicking it on those free kick senarios advantage is allowed. Is the illegal handling by players also the same? Remember the idea of a legal throw in being kicked by the thrower a second time? Second touch INDFK no advantage. We were unsure but now I assume you are not. If instead of kicking the thrower handles it, say punches it away suddenly the second touch is supersueded by a DFK foul and we can now apply advantage? So even if the intent in both cases was to keep the attackers fron gaining posession only the DFK foul of deliberate handling as it listed as an offence against an opponent where kicking the ball is not? Or is this reserved strictly for the keeper?
Re: points to ponder I would say that this would be an application of the advantage clause, since it was a penal foul, even though deliberate handling may not necessarily be against an opponent. But, the other aspect of this, which is similar, but not identical in applicaion is that under Law 5, IBD 8, we may delay our whistle in order to judge effect and if the effect of an offense, irrespective of whether it is a foul or an infraction, is trifling, then we don't stop play and what happens, happens.
I think the key to handling lays in the descriptions of DOGSO under Law 12: A player is sent off when he... "denies the opposing team a goal...by deliberately handling the ball" However, they make another instance of DOGSO clear as well: "denis and obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent...by an offense punishable by DFK or PK (a penal foul)." We know that handling is lumped together with the other penal fouls, so why the distinction between the two under the send off offenses? If you look under the list of fouls in Law 12, every single one states something is done to the opponent except handling. In the book Association Football Match Control by Stanley Lover, published in 1978, he lists handling the ball as one of the crimes against the game, not the opponent. Therefore at the time of the publication, we would be safe in assuming advantage was not to be applied to a handball situation. However, it became apparently clear our understanding of handling had to change the more it began having an impact on the actual opposing team instead of the procedures for playing the game. As a result, the idea of "crimes against the opponent" was joined by "crimes against the opposing team." Consequently, handling was now subject to the advantage clause. Later it also became part of the DOGSO send-offs when they were introduced. FIFA needed to keep the wording consistent within the Laws and therefore specifically state handling to prevent a goal is a crime against the opposing team.
Re: Re: points to ponder I guess this is why we have to study and discuss this stuff, because there is nothing intuitive about it at all. If I was drafting the rules, I would have said advantage could apply to anything. If the team being awarded the kick is better off without it, then don't blow the whistle. Period. However, that's clearly not the rule. This latest twist, however, doesn't make any sense to me. The reason - there are two (at least) fouls at issue in these situations. There is the second touch and there is the handball. It makes sense to me that the more serious foul trumps, to a point. It should clearly be a direct free kick, and if a card is appropriate, that should occur as well. But, even if one were inclined to apply the advantage to the penal foul, you still have the existence of the non-penal foul - the improper second touch - which I thought we had agreed meant that advantage could not apply. (i.e., you can, if you choose, delay the whistle on the handball, but you shouldn't be able to ignore the second touch, which in turn means that you ought to automatically call the handball, since the delay shouldn't be able to turn into anything). If someone can make sense of this for me, great. I think it's illogical, and it's just one of those things that I'm going to memorize and not question further.
This is why rule revisions are made, blech The idea is to punish the more serious offense. Handball is a more serious offense than a second touch, so if a second touch is a handball it takes the back seat. As a result we can now apply advantage.
The words in Law 5 (Advantage) are, "... when the team against which an offence was committed ..." The keywords are "offence" and "committed." Law 12 only uses "offence" and never uses "infringement." Law 11 uses "offence" but always as "offside offense." Laws 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 use "infringement." An "offside offence" is the same as an "infringement." In Law 12 the "infringements" of Law 3 clearly become "offences." Only Law 12 uses the word "committed" and that is in the sense of an offence committed. Thus the words in Law 5 (Advantage) could be linked solely to Law 12 by the use of the words "offence" and "committed" and especially by the phrase "offence committed." We have solved the meaning of "Advantage." The next question is, "What does "trifling" mean?" Is that also linked to an "offence" in Law 12?
Statesmen However, they make another instance of DOGSO clear as well: "denis and obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent...by an offense punishable by DFK or PK (a penal foul)." In my copy of LOTG it states "Free kick" not "direct or indirect" So could you not use impeding as a reson for dismissal on DOGSO? or any other technical foul such as second touch etc. Tame Lion I have read your post clearly and understand precisely where you are coming from but unfortunately there is a flaw in your cunning use of the English Language. If you are to use the wording exactly as is and accept that you can only play advantage to offences and not infringements then explain this... Law 12 states you can caution a player who "Persintently INFINGES the LOTG" now there is no way around this, for your argument to hold water you have to accept that you can not caution for persistent fouling as it does not state "Persistenly COMMITS OFFENCES" In which case we should be cautioning players who are persistently being caught offside or foul throwing the ball etc. The debate continues. I still think the Psychie is wrong over there in that "advantage" should only be applied to LAW12 We have given clear valid reasons where advantage should be played and these coincide with the Spirit of the Game and are common sense. To say that you carn't apply advantage to technical offences seems to me to be limiting the flow of the game and the spectacle of it but thats just my oppinion. Keep Smiling Dodgy Ref