[Albion] One for those who know the rules of football

[Buzzer]

Can someone please clarify an incident that happened today.

Our player was fouled so the ref signalled for advantage to be played but the ball fell immediately to Murray who was in an offside position. The ref then signalled a free kick to Stoke.

That's not right, is it?

 

[maffew]

It was a foul
Only reason I can think of is an over rule by the lino and he was onside when the foul was made

 

[Saladpack Seagull]

Sounds harsh, but if the ball had broken differently (i.e not to Murray) we would have the advantage. I guess it was just our tough luck that the ball went to an offside player. Perhaps someone qualified as a ref could give us chapter and verse on this.......

 

[GT49er]

One for those who know the rules of football.

On NSC??!!

 

[Buzzer]

On NSC??!!

Fair point. In my defence I'm pissed.

 

[dingodan]

I thought the same thing. Offside, so no advantage, so free kick. Not sure why it wasn't given. Although when something similar happens and the team with the advantage gets a shot off quickly after the event and misses, they usually don't go back for the free kick either, kind of like you had your advantage/chance, you don't get a second crack because you ballsed it up.

I agree with you though I had the same reaction as you at the time.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

A pedant will be along in a minute to tell you they are laws not rules.

 

[The Brighton Bear]

A pedant will be along in a minute to tell you they are laws not rules.

They are laws not rules.

 

[Telford Seagull]

TECHNICALLY on the new rules, the referee got it spot on. The advantage is now attributed to the PLAYER and not the team. It can be argued, Murray got the advantage but the team didn't, but that's irrelevant.

That being said, a near identical incidemt occurred a bit later for Stoke and the referee pulled it back. Bizarre.

 

[Buzzer]

Sorry but I don't understand the nuance between team advantage and player advantage.

Can you explain please?

 

[Telford Seagull]

Sorry but I don't understand the nuance between team advantage and player advantage.

Can you explain please?

Yeah no worries.

So let's say Player A is fouled. As he is fouled, his attempted ball does NOT reach his intended target, then there is no advantage and a free kick is awarded. If player A's ball DOES reach his intended target (i.e. player B) but then the ball is lost by another player, the game continues. Because it is deemed that Player B lost the ball, not player A in the act of being fouled.

Does that make sense?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yeah no worries.

So let's say Player A is fouled. As he is fouled, his attempted ball does NOT reach his intended target, then there is no advantage and a free kick is awarded. If player A's ball DOES reach his intended target (i.e. player B) but then the ball is lost by another player, the game continues. Because it is deemed that Player B lost the ball, not player A in the act of being fouled.

Does that make sense?

What if the foul results in the ball not reaching its intended target but lands somewhere else but advantageous? I presume advantage is played in this case as well? And if the players ballses it up advantage is again lost?

 

[Triggaaar]

Can someone please clarify an incident that happened today.

Our player was fouled so the ref signalled for advantage to be played but the ball fell immediately to Murray who was in an offside position. The ref then signalled a free kick to Stoke.

That's not right, is it?

If Murray was immediately offside, then clearly there is no advantage, so no, that doesn't sound right.

It was a foul
Only reason I can think of is an over rule by the lino and he was onside when the foul was made

What? It's not Murray that was fouled, so it's a foul.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Wondered why he didn't pull it back

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

they are laws not rules.

Pedant.

 

[Triggaaar]

Anyone got a video of it?

 

[Triggaaar]

So let's say Player A is fouled. As he is fouled, his attempted ball does NOT reach his intended target, then there is no advantage and a free kick is awarded. If player A's ball DOES reach his intended target (i.e. player B) but then the ball is lost by another player, the game continues. Because it is deemed that Player B lost the ball, not player A in the act of being fouled.

Does that make sense?

But if player A is fouled, and as he is fouled the ball goes somewhere not good (to the other team, or to a teammate who is offside), then there's no advantage.
Advantage: Would the fouled player be better off getting a free kick, or having play continue? Obviously a free kick in this instance. There is clearly no advantage to him to let play continue.

Everyone praised the ref for playing advantage against West Ham, which was clearly a decision made after Gross played the ball - a TEAM advantage, not an advantage to Knocky.

 

[Buzzer]

Yeah no worries.

So let's say Player A is fouled. As he is fouled, his attempted ball does NOT reach his intended target, then there is no advantage and a free kick is awarded. If player A's ball DOES reach his intended target (i.e. player B) but then the ball is lost by another player, the game continues. Because it is deemed that Player B lost the ball, not player A in the act of being fouled.

Does that make sense?

Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. My gut feeling though is that the spirit of the law should hold sway over the letter of the law and in this case the referee gave us advantage but we lost it almost immediately so there was no real advantage.

 

[Telford Seagull]

What if the foul results in the ball not reaching its intended target but lands somewhere else but advantageous? I presume advantage is played in this case as well? And if the players ballses it up advantage is again lost?

On your first point, obviously that's advantageous to the PLAYER and therefore an advantage can be given

If the player who receives the ball 'ballses' it up, then the game continues as normal

 

[Telford Seagull]

But if player A is fouled, and as he is fouled the ball goes somewhere not good (to the other team, or to a teammate who is offside), then there's no advantage.
Advantage: Would the fouled player be better off getting a free kick, or having play continue? Obviously a free kick in this instance. There is clearly no advantage to him to let play continue.

Everyone praised the ref for playing advantage against West Ham, which was clearly a decision made after Gross played the ball - a TEAM advantage, not an advantage to Knocky.

You've answered your own question there.

With the West Ham game, thats fine. It was an advantage to be played. You don't pull it back for a team advantage. It only ever needs to be done if the referee has to award a free kick after giving an advantage