A player who was running with the ball is tripped by an opponent but regains his balance and passes the ball to a team mate. You decide to use the advantage clause, but as soon as the pass is made, you realize (within the three seconds) that the team mate receiving the ball is in an offside position. What action do you take, and why? (4 marks) While we can apply advantage for a foul during play we can return to the original foul if the advantage does not materialize. If the tripped player recovers his balance and is in full control of the ball then decides to make a pass to his offside teammate, the advantage is lost by his own actions and not a result of the foul a few moments earlier. If the actions are self inflicted and not associated to the challange or subsequent immediate pressure I would stop play Award an INDFK to the defending team for the offside Depending on the nature of the original foul have a word with the culprit or apply the caution if there was reason too. OK now give me the reason we need to go back to the original foul site ???
Sorry, but I cannot think of a reason why I would blow the whistle for the original foul. Like you said he got his balance and was moving and then played the ball to someone offside. It's part of the game and the result was fair to all.
If you would have said, "he regained his balance long enough to pass ahead to an offside teammate just before falling to the ground", then I might go back to the first foul. If he recovered long enough to review the options and chose to pass to the offside player, then call offside.
I'm inclined to agree with the posts thus far, but could think of situations where bringing the ball back and calling the original foul would be fairest, even if not correct. What if the foul contributed to the offside (i.e., it delayed the pass, during which time the player receiving the pass made his run and ended up offside)? Also, was the advantage because of the position that the fouled player was in, or was it related to the play of the whole team which included the offside player? Seems like the ref could sell it easily - I was playing advantage because I thought that player was onside, but my AR tells me otherwise in which case there was no advantage. In reality, I think a lot depends on how much time passed and how much control the fouled player had over his actions. If the pass truly was an independent act by him (as opposed to last ditch effort to keep the ball before going down), offside.
I agree Blech, I considered this as a definate possibility the advantage rule allows us to determine if in fact an actuall advantage was present your reasoning is meritous in that it remains ITOOTR if it is in fact so. The idea of the AR lending his support is truly first rate as I could imagine such a senario. In fact I am leaning to the point this possibility should be listed in the answer. The observations by my fellow colleagues for these series of exam situations has been truly enlightening. And the purpose for which this board posts and threads are truly designed to do!
Fair reasoning cannot come into play here. You must deal with the facts in determining what you should do as a Referee. As Referee, you determine by the fact that after the attacker is fouled, he still can play the ball, so you apply advantage. The fact that a team mate might be or might not be offside should not be part of that decision, you cannot know if the player will pass or hold the ball. After applying advantage, that player passess to the offside team mate, you as Referee must use that fact to determine what you do next . That would be penalize the offiside player for being in that offside position. You cannot in anyway justify recinding the advantage reasoning that it did not materialize. It did, the player just didn't make good use of it and now another sequence of play has started.
If the fouled player was making the pass attempt as he was fouled and then recovered to continue the pass? Say a shirt pull and the ball was only partially struck by the off balance player in the direction of the 2nd player. He rips free regains his balance and then hits it with more force in the direction of the now offside attacker? I know what you are saying whistle and I did state that in my original answer Quote "If the tripped player recovers his balance and is in full control of the ball then decides to make a pass to his offside teammate, the advantage is lost by his own actions and not a result of the foul a few moments earlier. If the actions are self inflicted and not associated to the challange or subsequent immediate pressure. However, in rereading the way the actual question was formatted I belive you are correct Whistle and the possibility of what I think Blech and I were thinking is too subjective based on the available information. Got to quit looking for those loopholes LOL
Re: Re: upgrade #5 been great so far thanks for the input Yes, if you stated in your original scenario that the instant he was passing the ball, he was being fouled and the ball went to a teammate in an offside position you could then make a mental arguement regarding allowing play to continue or calling the original foul. However, as you pointed out above those were not the facts of the advantage scenario.
There aren't many loopholes. But, it's a good idea to prepare for the game. You never know what will happen and you should be prepared. However, if at the time of the game, you spend too much time thinking "can I do this" or "can I do that" it's too late to do anything. Stick with the facts at the time and use your knowledge of the game and Laws to make a fair judgement. The facts of each game are right there in front of you. "What ifs" don't form facts, but they can help prepare us for each game.
An attacker is running for a shot on goal, but is tripped up in the PA as he is trying to kick the ball. He regains his balance, ref signals for advantage, and he nails a shot that sails just wide of the crossbar on what looked like a sure goal otherwise. Can the referee recind advantage since the player missed the shot? Nope, it was just a bad application of advantage. An attacker is running but gets tripped up by a defender. He regains his balance and the ref signals advantage, only to have the player pass the ball to a teammate offside. Can the referee recind advantage since the player made a bad pass? Nope, it was just a bad application of advantage. The question already assumes the ref screwed up. He needs to be more aware of the play in general, noting the offside attackers (or even barely onside -- it's still too close to judge) and not apply advantage.
I noted in my original post that I was suggesting something that was fair, as opposed to correct. That said, I am a strong proponent of delaying the advantage call for a brief moment to actually determine if it comes to fruition. I saw a game yesterday where a referee played advantage (in the defensive third of the field), only to have the player who committed the initial foul to instaneously tackle the ball cleanly and send a pass to a teammate for a goal. I'm not a big fan of the advantage in the defensive side of the field to begin with, but this was clearly a situation where a delayed call could (and should) have been corrected, but having called it quickly the ref was somewhat helpless to do anything about the situation. With respect to my earlier post, I definitely went outside the hypothetical. I think this raises legitimate issues for a referee to think about in playing the advantage in this kind of situation, even if they were not present in this specific hypothetical.
I think that the further back up the field a play occurs, the bigger the advantage of maintaining possession has to be in order to let play continue. If a player is fouled in their defensive 3rd, unless the next touch springs a counter or some such thing, the free kick is going to be more advantageous. Blow the whistle.
I don't think this is bad application of the advantage, the players did not take advantage of the advantage. A Referee can't predict what will happen after an advantgae is applied. He can use his facts that are in front of him, his experience, and play level. After that it's up to the players.
Sounds like the advantage wasn't realised and should have been called back. Also, why give an advatage that far away from the attackers goal? What's the advantage unless that player has a clear run up field.
Remember I asked why we should go back to the original foul Gues swhat gang been basically told my answer is out to lunch and yes the original foul is to be called . Here is a response to a response when I asked why Griz wrote: Assume for a moment the player instead of passing has a shot go wide or picks up the ball with his hands and throws it at the defender. The 2 or 3 or 4 seconds possibily allowed are a reflecton of what the PLAYER chooses to do with the fact you have not stopped play. instructor wrote: This is like comparing apples to oranges. In the first situation, the ball is now out of play, and cannot be brought back into play to penalize the original offence. In the second, the player with the 'advantage' has committed an offence, and if this is the only reason the advantage did not ensue, then the player must be penalized for this offence. 2ndary reply....Not to belabour this too much the incident about running into a defender is an opponent is involved in the outcome no oponent figures into this pass to the offside teammate If the shot be it wide or hit the post and comes back into play. Or a further offence requiring us to stop play. Or the player slips and falls all by his self once free and clear In all cases the advantage never happens. due to the player's own luck, unaffected by the opposition.... Griz wrote: If a player is in charge of the ball, under control, his poor selection of choices do not allow him another opportunity for advantage. instructor wrote: So, if the ref yells 'advantage', and the player instead of turning right where he will have half the field wide open, turns left and runs smack into a defender, he will not get the original free kick because the advantage did not ensue? 2ndary reply.....Not at all if that defender was close enough to effect play then there is no clear advantage!...... Instructor wrote But, not to get sidetracked too much, I went back and read the question again. (A good tip, by the way, because you may find that the facts have become distorted as you try and work out the answer). Question 13 wrote: A player who was running with the ball is tripped by an opponent but regains his balance and passes the ball to a team mate. You decide to use the advantage clause, but as soon as the pass is made, you realize (within the three seconds) that the team mate receiving the ball is in an offside position. What action do you take, and why? (4 marks) instructor wrote: Couple of things stand out. Nowhere does it say that you have signalled advantage, just that you have 'decided' to use the clause. This may or may not be significant. 2ndary reply......I am beginning to see this as crucial to the matter if we are delaying the whistle to see the result of the foul before signalling advantage. The mechanics of how we allow this to unfold could affect the decision. We actually have never stated there was any advantage and are simply applying a late whistle for the foul recognition. In that the infringement of offside is not as nasty an incident as was the foul....... instructor wrote: The other thing is that the referee realizes 'as soon as the pass is made' (within the 3 seconds), that the advantage will not be realized due to the offside 'position'. I think it would be different if the question said the ball got to the receiver, at which point the assistant raised the flag etc. 2ndary reply....I have a hard time with this advantage will not be realized due to a team mate being in an offside position as any relevance what so ever. The control issue by the attacker to me is the issue, advantages that do not work out by an attacker making a decision that is not forced upon him is not justification to go with the foul as it corrects a mistake not maintains an advantage. I am trying to see the logic here but admittedly it fails me.... instructor wrote: To me, this question is painting a picture of a situation where the referee realized very early that the advantage would not or could not ensue. For this reason I think the answer they would be looking for is to call back the advantage and penalize the original offence. 2ndary reply...I can see that but admittedly find it flawed... 2ndary reply Assume again the defender who fouled the attacker was the second last defender or even the last guy as in the keeper the atttacker trips stumbles recovers and in possesion of the ball now passes to an offside positioned team mate ahead of him is an idiot, advantage was present he gave it away, to reward him for that poor play is not our job it was to call the foul or apply the advantage if the foul was not so serious as needing to stop play. We did that, he chose to blow it. I can see where there COULD be room for choosing the DFK foul over the offside pass ONLY if the pass was forced by pressure or a continuation of an original pass that the foul somehow affected. We have several seconds to CONSIDER advantage but if I see advantage realized in a 1, 2 or 3 second time frame it was there whether is was a wise decision maybe up for debate. But if that offside pass was a lofted ball hit out of play? If the attacker committed an offence? In each case we can not go back to the foul? I suppose it could be semantics in the way the question could be interpreted. I fully understand we can in our opinion decide if in fact an advantage exisited in that 3 second time frame but are we obligated to ensure the advantage materializes for the benifit of the attackers if they screw it up? I suppose in conclusion in the way I stated my answer initially is it truly completely wrong or simply an alternate view of an assumed situation?? I know just enough now to confuse the crap out of me.
Re: Remember I asked why we should go back to the original foul Your mentor instructor is being highly inventive in his rhetoric. It's clear cut and simple. You signal or recognize advantage and the player has time to regain his balance and move forward. He passes the ball to a teammate in an offside position. Wheet! Offside restart with IFK for the opponent. He's introducing a lot of things that have nothing to do with the actions of the player. Seems highly whimiscal to me. Going back and calling the original foul is tantamount to excusing the player for using poor judgement in passing the ball to his teammate. Short of the player receiving a concusion. I cannot excuse the foul as the cause of his poor decision to pass the ball. We are not there to correct players poor decisions; only whistle them as they violate the spirit and LOTG.
Re: Re: Remember I asked why we should go back to the original foul Agreed. There was an earlier discussion in one of Griz's related threads about the difference between an objective upgrade examination like the ones used in the U.S. and a more subjective upgrade examination such as they apparently use in Canada. These boards and upgrade clinics are excellent places to hash out subjective opinions, but I see problems in using this format for an upgrade test, if that is in fact the context of these exchanges. Griz, are these examples of actual test questions and the type of responses that are expected (and graded), or are these questions simply used to get you to think in more detail, in preparation for an objective test?
The point I'd like to bring up is that the instructor pointed out that advantage has not been signalled. In other words, the pass to the person in the offside position occurred in that short timeframe where we "evaluate" if advantage is going to materialize before either whistling the foul or signaling advantage, play on. I have a hard time calling APO while the pass is on it's way and immediately blowing the whistle and signaling offside. I agree with pk's comment about using these types of situations for an upgrade test. It's almost one of those situations where you have to see it. I can certainly imagine a short hesitation and signalling APO BEFORE the pass is made. Then upon completion of the pass, the AR flag goes up and you whistle for offside. I have no problem with that scenario. I can also certainly imagine the player stumbling and making the pass partly because he felt that given his current state, he wasn't going to be able to maintain possession thru the next challenge -- so he makes the pass to a player who winds up being in an offside position. If AT THAT MOMENT, I as the CR knew or suspect the receiving player was in an offside position, I'm going to whistle the original foul, state clearly "advantage didn't materialize" and bring it back. In between these two situations -- both of which would be reading more into the question than is there -- and I feel it's definitely a situation of you have to see it unfold and it's not really a very fair question for a cut and dried response. It may be a case of the answers are graded depending upon how you support them -- in which case you could answer either way and as long as you supported it with your reasoning and the suppositions you're making based upon the LIMITED information then you'll be ok on the test.
I think that to me it depends on exactly why you are invoking advantage. For example, consider the following situations and let me know how you'd call them: There are two players attacking, one with the ball and the other on his right and slightly ahead of him. There are two defenders trying to stop both attackers in addition to the keeper. Case 1: The keeper comes out and fouls the attacker with the ball. The second defender is behind the second attacker, who is ahead of the first attacker (with the ball). The first defender goes up to stop the first attacker, who has been fouled. However, you realize that a pass to the other attacker will result in an open shot from fairly close in with only a defender (no keeper) to beat, so you decide to call advantage. Had you not had a momentary brain cramp, you'd have blown the whistle; there is no advantage here. However, you have one. As expected, the pass is made. At that point you realize that the advantage you expected is actually offside. Case 2: The second defender runs away from goal in an attempted offside trap while the first defender commits the foul. Looking at the foul you decide that the pass would result in an advantage, but that advantage has not materialized due to the delay caused by the foul. Again, you should blow the whistle as soon as you realize it, but the question is what happens if you don't notice that the player is now offside until the ball has been released. Case 3: The second defender slips. The first defender, realizing the situation, commits a tactical foul but fails to fully take down the first attacker. The first attacker now has his choice of either going in himself for a one-on-one with the keeper or passing the ball to his teammate for a similar chance, but chooses the pass to an offside teammate. Here, it seems that the call of advantage followed by offside is justified. It seems to me that in the first two cases, the issue is really that you incorrectly called advantage but did not realize it until the ball was released. To me, that should be a different situation from the one in which the advantage was there and wasted by offensive choices - here the offense never had an advantage.
Re: Re: Re: Remember I asked why we should go back to the original foul This particular question was a REAL test question from last year and since the test is being reformatted it is not wrong to take apart the how and why they wish the answers formulatted. These questions are done with the purpose of preparing us for an exam. Those instructors and mentors are trying to condition us what to expect and things to consider when responding to the questions in the exam. I love to gather input from as many sources as possible because I enjoy sharing information and obtaining insight into why things are done or thought of in certain ways. I think it is truly interesting as pointed out by a highly placed USSF official that debate and opinions create usefull discussion but unfortunately not always a correct answer at least in the context of an individuals national policy. It is not as important to agree on everything but to understand another's point of view. Look at the thought and effort by those who responded with their opinions. Great debates and communication is not always benifical if we only speak so that others may hear us .. I truly believe by participation we share in each others journey and the friends we make along the way tend to be the ones we like to keep. Below are the concluding comments of two people I much respect as my mentors Former instructor Wow what great points. Although, GB makes some great points, thats not the way its looked at. There was no advantage to give because the pass was to an offside player. Forget "what if's" and make it really simple-- If the ball (pass) had been to open space (no player) would there be an advantage. I would hope not, there isn't anyone to take the pass. So you would, I hope, not mak ean advantage call. This is the same situation-- the player (team mate) is in fact not there because he is not allowed to play the ball -- therefore: no advantage. GB-- I tried to argue your point at the class 1 course and learned that although your arguement is logical its not the CSA/ FIFA interpretation. This type of question has been on the exam 3 years in a row! _________________ Strictly speaking of course, instructor wrote: Wow. This must be like watching a tennis match I am going to conclude my part in this debate with a couple of comments, and then move on. I feel there is little value in comparing this, or any other question, to different circumstances i.e. 'what if they did this or that'. In the exam, which we are preparing for, they present you with a scenario and ask you to answer based on that alone. Bringing in different circumstances would be great for a 'technical session', but in the exam it's a case of 'What answer do they want?' You can bet your 'soccer style shoes or sneakers' that there will only be one correct answer. Back to the question - look at the sequence of events. The pass is made, and THEN the referee decides to play the advantage, almost immediately realizing that there is no possible advantage due to the offside position. This is just as much a case of the referee 'misreading' the advantage possibility as the player making a poor choice, with the sequence as stated. I'm almost 100% certain that this is CSA's opinion on this question also. .
Wholly Grizzlybear Batman! Griz, I think that there has been way too much thought here on yours and you intructors side. I believe there is no way that you can justify recinding that advantage by saying that the advantage did not ensue. You correctly applied advantage, the attacker made the poor decision to pass to the offside team mate. The advantage was realised because the attacker maintained enough control to make the pass to the offside team mate. You have made it more complicated than it is. Your instructor is attempting to give you a reason to make the attacking team feel better about blowing the advantage. Also, just because you did not visually signal advantage nor verbally signal advantage does not matter. You allowed play to continue and there has been another sequence of play. That being the "re-control" of the ball, then the pass. That concludes the advantage and starts another play. That play is the offside player now being involved in play and able to be penalised for being in that offside. I do not believe your instructor is thinkig correctly and is really stretching the answer he wants to work.
Agreed whistle! I really don't understand the logic behind the mentors ideas. The issue of establishing control following the foul is very important. I certainly don't want a game without flow nor more importantly a game where I go back and punish a foul because things didn't work out on the advantage. It's part of the game. Sorry Griz, but when I read your instructor/mentors last remarks, I was reminded of a certain poster on these boards that typically posts, put the crack pipe down and slowly walk away from it when he runs across a particularly skewed POV! I am having a hard time understanding his logic. Question, is the test an essay,true or false, or multiple choice, or combination? If I may ask you are upgrading to which grade? I understand if you wish not to disclose this information.
Re: Re: upgrade #5 been great so far thanks for the input I believe the actual test requires us to know and suppport our answers as we have disscussed here on the site. This question was a test question and has been on the exam the past three years. Now whether I agree with their answer; remember how I originally answered at the start of this thread? I just knew I was going in an opposite direction when I stated my answer feeling confident in my logic but looking for the flaw. If that is not an oxymoron I do not know what is LOL ;o) T&F or Multi-Choice require little preparation. We are also assessed a certain number of times throughout the year. I have no secrets Alberto, I am just a guy who loves the games and chooses to participate in anyone of a number of ways, coaching, mentoring, officiating. Class 1, Instructor and Assessor. I think KevBrunton has it pegged as how the position is being considered QUOTE "The point I'd like to bring up is that the instructor pointed out that advantage has not been signalled. In other words, the pass to the person in the offside position occurred in that short timeframe where we "evaluate" if advantage is going to materialize before either whistling the foul or signaling advantage, play on. I have a hard time calling APO while the pass is on it's way and immediately blowing the whistle and signaling offside. END QUOTE If we had of yelled " Advantage! Play On! and signaled it with the arms then the pass was made we have no issue. LAW 5 point 11 states "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" The opinions as to whether a player loses that advantage by his actions is not mentioned in law only assumed and while open for debate, if we reflect on the postion that the foul is being debated by the referee as a needed stoppage or allowing play as an advantage the advantage is really NOT YET determined. No signal is given or shown no length of time has passed and the advantage was not determined as EVER having been there. A DFK offence that should be given perhaps carries more weight than an INDFK that could be given..
Re: Re: Re: upgrade #5 been great so far thanks for the input The crux in my view is that regardless of whether signalled or not you made a choice not to blow your whistle on the original foul and allowed play to continue. That would appear to confirm that either the original foul was either trifling or indicates application of advantage by allowing play to continue. In my view once the player regained his balance his actions could not be called back for the original foul. Too much time passed in my view and he was not disadvantaged by the actions of the defender. If your scenario stated he regained his balance and then had the ball tackled away I would whistle the original foul. Clearly, in my opinion advantage materialized and the player made a poor judgement in passing the ball to a teammate in an offside position.
Re: Re: Re: Re: upgrade #5 been great so far thanks for the input This case perhaps rests on what a referee is deciding... but not yet decided on. When we delay a whistle it is not really an instananous decision we are reflecting on circumstances to see what developes. We recognize the foul as a DFK offence that requires a stoppage unless there is a clear cut advantage where he would benifit more from allowing play we can stop it and revert back to the foul. I think they feel the nature of the incident in the foul is has greater weight than a loss of posession through offside as there can be NO advantage possible that is better than the actual call of the original foul. Trust me Alberto I have argued your point which was my point at the beginning till I was blue and the fact is those who mark the exam want the answer they want. I am simply trying to see why it is so, whether I agree is not really relevant. I have forwarded a copy to Jim Allen for a USSF perspective and again to the UK RA review board will forward answers with their permission if and when it arrives. I intend to hibernate on this for now as my fur is allready ruffled. LOL ;o)