[Football] Advantage rule

[DavidinSouthampton]

Agreed. Football now seems to be using the Rugby interpretation of advantage. In football it used to be applied in situations such as when a player got fouled in scoring. Now, if a player is fouled play is allowed to continue, but if their team doesn’t benefit from the continuation, play gets pulled back. I preferred the old interpretation.

First contact/foul was outside the penalty area. So free kick, not penalty.

 

[Sheebo]

First contact/foul was outside the penalty area. So free kick, not penalty.

See Southampton game at home! Woeful VAR call. But the rule is if the foul continues on its a foul from there - not initial contact (which it didn’t v Saints at home and now they’re not using VAR as much with right calls, both that and Harry Kane’s pen wouldn’t have been given by VAR imo - neither were clear and obvious.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

See Southampton game at home! Woeful VAR call. But the rule is if the foul continues on its a foul from there - not initial contact (which it didn’t v Saints at home and now they’re not using VAR as much with right calls, both that and Harry Kane’s pen wouldn’t have been given by VAR imo - neither were clear and obvious.

I’m happy to admit I’m confused!?

But happy it didn’t lose us points!

 

[Sheebo]

I’m happy to admit I’m confused!?

But happy it didn’t lose us points!

The foul is not from where it first happened if it continues - ie continues into the box. That’s the rule or something like that. Which was why Southampton got that dubious pen against us at the Amex by VAR - the first contact was outside the area by March but VAR bloke claimed the foul continued into the box (it didn’t imo - he just fell onto the guy / momentum took them both into the box).

Sorry I’m probably not explaining it well tbh

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The foul is not from where it first happened if it continues - ie continues into the box. That’s the rule or something like that. Which was why Southampton got that dubious pen against us at the Amex by VAR - the first contact was outside the area by March but VAR bloke claimed the foul continued into the box (it didn’t imo - he just fell onto the guy / momentum took them both into the box).

Sorry I’m probably not explaining it well tbh

No problem. I do get it.

 

[Wardy's twin]

The foul is not from where it first happened if it continues - ie continues into the box. That’s the rule or something like that. Which was why Southampton got that dubious pen against us at the Amex by VAR - the first contact was outside the area by March but VAR bloke claimed the foul continued into the box (it didn’t imo - he just fell onto the guy / momentum took them both into the box).

Sorry I’m probably not explaining it well tbh

Has that always been the case ? Logic is a bit wrong IMO. Wasn't there a goal cancelled because of a previous foul which seems to establish the 'first foul' precedent ( i also not explaining well)

 

[Sheebo]

Has that always been the case ? Logic is a bit wrong IMO. Wasn't there a goal cancelled because of a previous foul which seems to establish the 'first foul' precedent ( i also not explaining well)

Honestly have no idea. I didn’t realise it was the rule until KLL won a pen for us in an away game that started outside and continued inside. My memory is crap but also odd and I’m almost certain [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] did a post on it (this was years ago) re the LuaLua incident explaining why it was a pen as the opposition fans were freeze framing the first contact image (outside area) and we’re up in arms. Then with the Southampton game this season, it reared its head again, but this time completely wrongly imo.

 

[Machiavelli]

Play gets pulled back all the time. If it was the other way round and our shot was saved/missed we be demanding to know where our advantage was. Sometimes it feels unjust, but it happens so often, and when it's our way we don't complain, I don't think we can criticise the ref for that.

I'm surprised at your response to it. Yes, I get the partisan way fans view ref's decisions, but surely the issue is whether Attwell's refereeing of this passage of play accords with the laws on this -- and you're normally much better at sharing such information

 

[Algernon]

Honestly hbd no idea. I didn’t realise it was the rule until KLL won a pen for us in an away game that started outside and continued inside. My memory is crap but also odd and I’m almost certain [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] did a post on it (this was years ago) re the LuaLua incident explaining why it was a pen as the opposition fans were freeze framing the first contact image (outside area) and we’re up in arms.

I can't see the logic in that.
If for instance a ball was crossed into the centre circle and Bissouma caught it and carried it all the way back to our penalty area, the ref wouldn't blow the whistle until he dropped it and so a penalty would be awarded? Surely the whistle must be blown and kick awarded at the point of the initial offence.

Also if a player was kicked 10 yards outside the penalty area whilst running into the area wouldn't there have to be continual contact between the fouler's foot and attacker's leg until he dropped? Surely as soon as the contact (foul play) stops then the whistle should be blown and that's where the ball is placed. This is usually both the starting and the stopping point of the foul when someone is kicked. If that isn't the case then even those who get kicked or get their shirt pulled in the centre circle could run all the way into the box, fall over, resulting in a penalty.

I think it's just another of those " we'll tell them this because there isn't anything written in the laws about it"

VAR seems to be keeping a slightly lower profile these last few weeks.

 

[Acker79]

I'm surprised at your response to it. Yes, I get the partisan way fans view ref's decisions, but surely the issue is whether Attwell's refereeing of this passage of play accords with the laws on this -- and you're normally much better at sharing such information

The law is not particularly clear about it, hence my reliance more of standard practice (when I talk about it happening all the time).

Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clea ropportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.​

and

1.Advantage
The referee may play advantage whenever an offence occurs but should consider the following in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

• the severity of the offence – if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal
• the position where the offence was committed - the closer to the opponent’s goal, the more effective the advantage can be
• the chances of an immediate, promising attack
• the atmosphere of the match

https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4imp

So the law itself doesn't say how much of an advantage is allowed before you can no longer pull it back. I remember seemingly quite a few years ago (withdean era, probably) there was a policy that once the ref had indicated advantage he couldn't pull it back, and referees would hold out on indicating for a while, but that often led to confusion. There are times where it feels unjust, that teams get two bites at the cherry to replace the one denied by the foul, but it happens.

There will always be the question of whether the shot was missed/saved because the player who took the shot didn't fully commit, expecting play to be brought back, and thus the "advantage" isn't really one. I think it comes down to the ref in any given game.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Surely the ref let play go, Southampton had the advantage, got a clear shot on target so why was it then pulled back? It meant they had two chances to score.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Exactly what i thought at the time, it seemed a very odd decision the ref

Play gets pulled back all the time. If it was the other way round and our shot was saved/missed we be demanding to know where our advantage was. Sometimes it feels unjust, but it happens so often, and when it's our way we don't complain, I don't think we can criticise the ref for that.

If the ref had given us the advantage to play on and we got a shot away / made their keeper make a save then the last thing i would expect would be the referee brining it back and giving us a second chance. I honestly can't recall a similar example of this decision being made by officials (the only ones i recall being called back are when there is no advantage, and often the let the game carry on even if there was no advantage gained)

 

[Sheebo]

I can't see the logic in that.
If for instance a ball was crossed into the centre circle and Bissouma caught it and carried it all the way back to our penalty area, the ref wouldn't blow the whistle until he dropped it and so a penalty would be awarded? Surely the whistle must be blown and kick awarded at the point of the initial offence.

Also if a player was kicked 10 yards outside the penalty area whilst running into the area wouldn't there have to be continual contact between the fouler's foot and attacker's leg until he dropped? Surely as soon as the contact (foul play) stops then the whistle should be blown and that's where the ball is placed. This is usually both the starting and the stopping point of the foul when someone is kicked. If that isn't the case then even those who get kicked or get their shirt pulled in the centre circle could run all the way into the box, fall over, resulting in a penalty.

I think it's just another of those " we'll tell them this because there isn't anything written in the laws about it"

VAR seems to be keeping a slightly lower profile these last few weeks.

Don’t disagree - think it’s a silly rule. Only learnt it from on here. Why constitutes a foul ‘carrying on’ too? Surely a shirt pull is the only thing that would be clear as to a foul carrying on? Footballs rules are ****ed at the moment and nobody knows them as they change all the time etc.

 

[drew]

The norm is that if no advantage materialises play goes back to the free kick but if the non-offending team fail to capitalise on that advantage that is their loss so I agree with most on here that the ref was wrong. That said, I think what he did do was what should be the norm and I think play should go on for at least 5-10 seconds (definitely not as long as they sometimes do in rugby).

If players know they have an advantage, we might see a few more speculative shots in the knowledge that if they miss they still get the free kick. Might be a rule change that adds to the game rather than take it away. That and allowing a non-offending to team to take a free kick when it suits them and not when it suits the opposition.

 

[Machiavelli]

The law is not particularly clear about it, hence my reliance more of standard practice (when I talk about it happening all the time).

Advantage
If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play. However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clea ropportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player when the ball is next out of play, but if the player plays the ball or challenges/interferes with an opponent, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart with an indirect free kick, unless the player committed a more serious offence.​

and

1.Advantage
The referee may play advantage whenever an offence occurs but should consider the following in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:

• the severity of the offence – if the offence warrants a sending-off, the referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal
• the position where the offence was committed - the closer to the opponent’s goal, the more effective the advantage can be
• the chances of an immediate, promising attack
• the atmosphere of the match

https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4imp

So the law itself doesn't say how much of an advantage is allowed before you can no longer pull it back. I remember seemingly quite a few years ago (withdean era, probably) there was a policy that once the ref had indicated advantage he couldn't pull it back, and referees would hold out on indicating for a while, but that often led to confusion. There are times where it feels unjust, that teams get two bites at the cherry to replace the one denied by the foul, but it happens.

There will always be the question of whether the shot was missed/saved because the player who took the shot didn't fully commit, expecting play to be brought back, and thus the "advantage" isn't really one. I think it comes down to the ref in any given game.

Thanks for this, although I agree with the interpretation of [MENTION=8619]Guy Fawkes[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION], even if we all wear blue-and-white-tinted spectacles

 

[Hugo Rune]

Honestly have no idea. I didn’t realise it was the rule until KLL won a pen for us in an away game that started outside and continued inside. My memory is crap but also odd and I’m almost certain [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] did a post on it (this was years ago) re the LuaLua incident explaining why it was a pen as the opposition fans were freeze framing the first contact image (outside area) and we’re up in arms. Then with the Southampton game this season, it reared its head again, but this time completely wrongly imo.

This is an interesting one against Leeds away.

Possible red card for the Leeds lunge and a penalty to us. We obviously got a free kick though!

0:48
https://youtu.be/qx7HY5DaRWs

 

[osgood]

Surely the ref let play go, Southampton had the advantage, got a clear shot on target so why was it then pulled back? It meant they had two chances to score.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Exactly this !

Have the rules on playing advantage changed ?

So how come they didnt score on the second chance free kick

Totally out of synch with the rest of the season !!!

 

[Sheebo]

This is an interesting one against Leeds away.

Possible red card for the Leeds lunge and a penalty to us. We obviously got a free kick though!

0:48
https://youtu.be/qx7HY5DaRWs

Stop posting fake vids - if we’d beaten Leeds United away we’d have been Champions of the World and I don’t see that on our wiki page Keep dreaming!

 

[Gwylan]

I disagree with the consensus here (a lot of blue and white spectacles being worn). It wasn't like a rugby situation where the ref waited a couple of minutes, there was probably about a second between the foul and the shot and I think the ref judged, quite rightly, that no advantage had accrued. If the positions had been reversed and an Albion player fouled, we'd have had 11 pages complaining about the decision.

 

[Quinney]

I disagree with the consensus here (a lot of blue and white spectacles being worn). It wasn't like a rugby situation where the ref waited a couple of minutes, there was probably about a second between the foul and the shot and I think the ref judged, quite rightly, that no advantage had accrued. If the positions had been reversed and an Albion player fouled, we'd have had 11 pages complaining about the decision.

But there was an advantage, the ball ran to a Southampton player and he had a one on one chance that luckily for us Sanchez made a great save.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Algernon]

the ref judged, quite rightly, that no advantage had accrued.

They had a shot from 6 yards out.
Are you saying that the only thing that would've constituted an advantage was a resulting goal?