Obviously I know that I do as the Referee. Here is the situation. Ball played into a forward with his back to goal, about 20 yards out. As he receives the ball, he is fouled (pushed) from behind, borderline yellow, but not 100% yellow. As he is fouled he plays it off to his forward partner about 5 yards back towards midfield and to the side. The second striker now has no one in front of him and is 20 yards from goal. If he starts dribbling, he has an easy 1v1 with the keeper and no other defenders near. I call and signal advantage. Instead of going towards the goal, he waits about 3 seconds then passes it back towards his own defenders near midfield. He wants the foul and says that keeping possession doesn’t equal advantage. I tell him I agree, but you just had an opportunity for a 1v1 with the keeper and passed it up. In the end, I did not bring it back for the foul, because I felt that they had the advantage and chose to waste it. Was I wrong?
I think in the example you gave you were correct. Especially after announcing the advantage and with the time that went by, I think you had to let it ride. Now for what you can do next time... Advantage is a power under Law 5 and the referee obviously makes the decision, as you mention. However, I would suggest that we make that decision with the input of the players and base that on the level of play, temperature of the match, even time of the match (how tired are the players and will this result in retaliation) . In this case, the players may have told you that they don't want you to call advantage there. Next time, consider that. I've seen this happen a few times especially in proximity to the goal as players would prefer the set piece. It's hard to get it right sometimes, for sure. My feeling is, if the players decide they don't want the advantage pretty quick, just call the foul. I've gotten in trouble trying to force the team to play to a certain level and I'm sure others have, too. Again, in your case... tough situation, but you made the right choice. Try and read the body language and attacking opportunity before announcing your decision as that can sometimes give you a clue.
And because Murphy is such a nice friendly guy, as soon as you don't call advantage because they've made it clear they don't want it, they will of course bury the ball in the net just as you blow your whistle
In your scenario, I'd have done the same. What PaperSt. said... I'm working on reading the players for that too, depends on the minute in the match as well. What I dislike is when the players have essentially not taken the advantage preferring the set piece in the first half then in the second the capable striker bails out and the coach goes ballistic because I didn't apply advantage this time (the usual hoohah about being consistent, etc). It's a devils' case sometimes. I was trained and conditioned to "always" apply advantage per Law 5. At the upper level I've never had a problem, although in HS that changes especially for teams with less talent up front.
I had the opposite scenario take place, during a 2nd Division amateur men's game, a player was chopped down in the PA for a clear PK - but the ball rolled right to one of his teammates, standing 15 yards from the goal on the post. However, I have seen this player trip over his own laces plenty of times, so before he could even wind up to shoot (on an onrushing GK that knew this guy sucked), I'm on my whistle hard and loud. And sure enough, the guy missed his "shot" by about 8 yards but I was basically standing on the Penalty Spot at that point. However, the DEFENSE went ballistic, saying I should have played advantage, and in fact I had to bring out some fluorescent plastic in order to ward off the dissent demons because they felt that I was being unfair somehow for calling the clearest foul all game. The one thing I've found with applying (or not applying) advantage, is that you've basically got an 4 in 4 chance of making of someone complain about your decision: apply/goal = defense pissed ("ref you should have called that foul back there!"); apply/no-goal=offense pissed ("ref you should have called that foul back there!"); no apply/fk = offense pissed ("ref you shouldn't have called that foul here! We could have scored!"); no apply/pk = defense pissed ("ref you shouldn't have called that foul here! they could have scored!"). You're never gonna win, just remember that technically, with advantage, since it's your discretion, you're always right. And technically correct is the best kind of correct.
One of my favorite head scratchers. "Guys, you don't have a vote. Its between me and them." <poiniting to attackers>
To me, the universal signal that the offense wants the foul is to stop playing. If the offense continues passing the ball, even if it is negative, I now need something else to stop play. They can't do that and simultaneously say "I want my foul now." If, within the 3-5 seconds after the foul and advantage indication the offense stops and "gives up," then I can go back to the original foul.
I agree with that if you mean effectively the entire offense stops. More than once I've had the fouled player turn around and look at me with the arms-up "C'mon ref!" gesture, while behind his back and unbeknownst to him, his teammate has gathered up the ball and is sprinting towards the goal with it.
That's why I've concluded that actually using the word "Advantage," either with or without "Play on," but in any case not just "Play on" by itself, is the better way to go. There are too many refs who say "Play on" when they're thinking "trifling" or "that's not a foul" or "that hand ball was not deliberate," and too many players (and a few coaches) who interpret it that way. I worked with a ref the other day who went so far as to yell "Advantage to white, play on!" That seemed to work very well.
Had a situation where I signaled advantage, yelled, the ball was played and then I had the audacity to pull the ball back to the spot for the foul. "Ref, you can't do that! You've already gave advantage!!". Clearly, this was the best foul, advantage and pull back for the FK that I've done in a year. Guy got cheapshot (yeah I carded him), goes to the ground, long ball is played into oblivion and everyone stops playing while I signal advantage. Long ball hits a defender and I pull it back, card the guy and attend to the fouled player who is now "hurt" but doesn't need to leave the field. Ah, grown men. Sometimes I'd rather deal with 16 year olds...
I think you should always try and play the advantage and I disagree with what the player said, possession is enough. The rule is there to keep the game flowing. Players will always complain, if you give the foul they complain that you should have allowed the game to flow, if you allow the game to flow, they want the free kick. However, in my opinion you should always edge towards letting the game flow if possible
I learned some years ago that advantage is always possession, but possession is not always advantage, as well as teams play and referees adjudicate. When players begin to tell a referee what calls to make, of any type, and the referee complies, you take the first step to losing control of play. A clear play-on and signal keeps play in control of the referee. And to be certain there is a consistent approach to fair and equitable play, the referee, along with their assistants, must be the sole authority to determine the validity of the calls being made; not some random player. Probably a perspective in the minority here.
I, too, like flow in the games I referee. I don't agree with the statement that possession is enough. Some games that is fairly true, but for many games that is not. Be careful with that one. If you're doing a Men's D1 game, they usually equate possession with advantage. If you are doing a PDL game, bueno suerte calling it that way all the time. First time you tell that player who got hacked that his teammate kept possession in a 1v4 situation I have a feeling things will get interesting
Here's a spin to the discussion. As an AR you see a foul that because of the position of the players you know the CR did not or could not have seen. It is a foul that if he/she had seen, they would have whistled. Due to the nature of the situation a possible advantage situation could materialize. It does not. Although it looks awkward, can you still call the foul as an AR? Or, is one better off just calling the original foul?
In the last situation, the 1v4 the player would probably lose possession within a few seconds and if that's the case you can blow, call it back and give the free kick as there wasn't really any advantage in allowing the game to go on. It's common sense really, the OP talked of a 1v1 with the keeper, I think anyone in their right mind would see that as an advantage, if the attacking player is on his own with 3 or 4 defenders close to him then there is no advantage. There will always be exceptions to any rule, the 1v4 is that, possession in such a case would not be an advantage but for the most part the game should be allowed to go on
Would the AR not be raising his/her flag to indicate a foul had taken place? If the ref has not seen the foul the AR should raise the flag, if the ref has seen it and raised his/her arms to play on then the AR should just carry on The AR should always raise the flag for the foul and allow the on field ref to decide whether an advantage should be played or to blow for the free kick
Andy- Is that written anywhere as directive or just coming out as word of mouth? The last official thing I recall seeing was on JA's site, where, IIRC, he said there are two ways to do it (i.e., singal-verbalize-call-bak-if-needed and wait-until-materialize-to-signal/verbalize), and that both were acceptable. -SCL
I've done it but I'm not sure I have the authority under the LOTG. See if this makes sense to you. Advantage is under Law 5, therefore not the AR's decision. So the "official" answer is to call the original foul and let the referee decide whether or not to apply advantage. Thoughts?
Possession, alone, is not enough. See ATR 5.6: The point of advantage is that it is more advantageous to the offended team for play to continue.
That is not why the advantage clause exists. The rule is there to prevent a team from gaining an advantage by breaking the rules. Since your basic premise was incorrect, it isn't surprising that your subsequent advice was muddled to the extent that you had to play the "common sense" card to get out of it.
I once saw this on TV (EPL, I think). Red attacking, well forward, near AR1. Hotly contested. CR moves towards AR1's corner for better view. He's in pretty deep when white wins the ball and makes a FABULOUS long pass out towards AR2. AR2 sees a foul, but white has a counterattack going. AR2 raises flag, wiggles, but never stops sprinting back with 2LD (looked really silly ) . He KNEW 1) only he saw the foul 2) advantage was going to be applied if white kept possession 3) he was likely to be needed to make and on/off decision in a few seconds as the counterattack developed, so he had to stay in position. Sure enough. CR played advantage and AR2 was in postion to make the on/off decision on the cross seconds later. OTOH, we see ARs just do the slow flag thing (wait and see) all the time. I actually sent this scenario to Jim Allen, asking about AR2's mechanics. iirc, his response: meh, do what you gotta do.