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

[Hampster Gull]

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.

I thought they were laws not rules

 

[Buzzer]

I thought they were laws not rules

Let's at least clear this one up right now. The words 'law' and 'rule' are synonyms therefore either description can be used.

Cambridge online dictionary:

 

[Triggaaar]

You've answered your own question there.

I wasn't asking a question

With the West Ham game, thats fine. It was an advantage to be played. You don't pull it back for a team advantage.

With the WH game the ref was going to give a free kick, but saw there was an advantage to the team (not the player), so he played advantage. But you said:

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's not making sense.

 

[Telford Seagull]

I wasn't asking a question
With the WH game the ref was going to give a free kick, but saw there was an advantage to the team (not the player), so he played advantage. But you said:
That's not making sense.

You did ask a question for me to answer with regards to the rules.

And you're just not understanding this at all mate. Take the West Ham game. Knockaert was fouled and the ball continued on as an advantage. That is fine. Advantage can be awarded to the player or team, the only time when the player v.s. team situation comes into play is the 2nd phase when player 2 potentially loses the ball.

Using the West Ham 1st goal. Knockaert was fouled when passing the ball the Groß. Had Groß lost the ball, it would NOT have been pulled back for a free kick. The game would have continued as it would be deemed that Groß lost the ball and it wasn't Knockaert's pass being altered in the act of being fouled. Its quite simple. Advantage is given to the team or player, but can only be pulled back as a free kick if the fouled player was at a disadvantage and not the team.

I'd like to also remind you that i didn't write these rules and they're not my doing. Perhaps if you disagree or are confused by them so much, you could write to the FA?

 

[Triggaaar]

You did ask a question for me to answer with regards to the rules.

Sorry, I didn't, I said "Advantage: Would the fouled player be better off getting a free kick, or having play continue? Obviously a free kick in this instance" - that's a rhetorical question.

And you're just not understanding this at all mate.

Ok, I'm paying attention.

Take the West Ham game. Knockaert was fouled and the ball continued on as an advantage. That is fine. Advantage can be awarded to the player or team, the only time when the player v.s. team situation comes into play is the 2nd phase when player 2 potentially loses the ball.

Right, but the example Buzzer gave wasn't the 2nd phase of play - the fouled player passed to Murray - phase 1! There was no phase 2.

Using the West Ham 1st goal. Knockaert was fouled when passing the ball the Groß. Had Groß lost the ball, it would NOT have been pulled back for a free kick.

Although I understand the rules might suggest it wouldn't have, if Gross had been immediately tackled and lost it, the ref would definitely have given the free kick - he had the whistle in his mouth and was about to blow, when he saw Gross passing to Murray.

The game would have continued as it would be deemed that Groß lost the ball and it wasn't Knockaert's pass being altered in the act of being fouled. Its quite simple. Advantage is given to the team or player, but can only be pulled back as a free kick if the fouled player was at a disadvantage and not the team.

I don't care how simple you claim it to be, you're not making sense. Knocky made his pass before he was fouled, so his pass was not altered in the first place. So the only disadvantage to Knocky was that he received a kicking after he played the ball, and that disadvantage is still the case after the ref sees what Gross is doing with it.

I'd like to also remind you that i didn't write these rules and they're not my doing.

Oh wow thanks for that

Perhaps if you disagree or are confused by them so much, you could write to the FA?

Refereeing is inconsistent. You're trying to make sense of inconsistent refereeing - that's the only thing that confusing.

 

[kingcole]

I knew as soon as I saw the title of this thread you would be referring to this incident.

I don’t have a clue tho. But the ref signalled for an advantage and we didn’t get one.

 

[Telford Seagull]

Sorry, I didn't, I said "Advantage: Would the fouled player be better off getting a free kick, or having play continue? Obviously a free kick in this instance" - that's a rhetorical question.

Ok, I'm paying attention.
Right, but the example Buzzer gave wasn't the 2nd phase of play - the fouled player passed to Murray - phase 1! There was no phase 2.

Although I understand the rules might suggest it wouldn't have, if Gross had been immediately tackled and lost it, the ref would definitely have given the free kick - he had the whistle in his mouth and was about to blow, when he saw Gross passing to Murray.

I don't care how simple you claim it to be, you're not making sense. Knocky made his pass before he was fouled, so his pass was not altered in the first place. So the only disadvantage to Knocky was that he received a kicking after he played the ball, and that disadvantage is still the case after the ref sees what Gross is doing with it.

Oh wow thanks for that
Refereeing is inconsistent. You're trying to make sense of inconsistent refereeing - that's the only thing that confusing.

Again, you've answered your own point.

 

[Triggaaar]

you're not making sense

Again, you've answered your own point.

Agreed.

 

[drew]

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?

Do you have any links these interpretations?

 

[Telford Seagull]

Agreed.

Funny how others understood my first comment, yet you fail to after a number of comments?

Perhaps read up on the rules or i don't know, maybe try playing the game? Could help ��

 

[Triggaaar]

Perhaps read up on the rules or i don't know, maybe try playing the game? Could help ��

Ah that's nice, you're trying to patronise.

 

[drew]

Funny how others understood my first comment, yet you fail to after a number of comments?

Perhaps read up on the rules or i don't know, maybe try playing the game? Could help ��

Do you have links to these interpretations or are they just your own. Cannot see anything on the Fifa site differentiating between player or team advantage!

 

[Telford Seagull]

Ah that's nice, you're trying to patronise.

Very rich given your tone of comments. If you've played the game, you'd know the rules better. Simple as that.

I answered a question that the OP asked. Several people have thanked me for it. You on the other hand have been a total d*ck about it.

So yes, go and get some experience in the game and perhaps you'll start to understand it instead of whinging that you don't agree with the rules.

Good bye ��

 

[Telford Seagull]

Do you have links to these interpretations or are they just your own. Cannot see anything on the Fifa site differentiating between player or team advantage!

Links? No. The rule changes a good few years ago but i can assure you that they are correct. There must be a rules/laws page somewhere but i couldn't tell you where

 

[drew]

Links? No. The rule changes a good few years ago but i can assure you that they are correct. There must be a rules/laws page somewhere but i couldn't tell you where

In other words you can't back up anything you've said. Cannot find any reference to differentiating between player or team advantage.

No reference to it here .

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_5_the_referee_en_47411.pdf

 

[Telford Seagull]

In other words you can't back up anything you've said. Cannot find any reference to differentiating between player or team advantage.

No reference to it here .

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_5_the_referee_en_47411.pdf

Wow another nugget.

If you pop yourself onto a referee's course, you'll learn the rules.

But not all referee's apply the rules to the letter of the law. I.e. i'm assuming you realise that as long as part of your foot is behind the line on a throw in, it's legal? Or are you not actually aware of modern day rules aswell?

 

[drew]

Wow another nugget.

If you pop yourself onto a referee's course, you'll learn the rules.

But not all referee's apply the rules to the letter of the law. I.e. i'm assuming you realise that as long as part of your foot is behind the line on a throw in, it's legal? Or are you not actually aware of modern day rules aswell?

I pretty much know the rules thank you. You don't need to go on a referees course to know the rules.

Why are there no links confirming your interpretations? Do the referees sit in secret groups deciding how they are going to interpret the rules but not tell anyone else?

In the case highlighted by the OP, there was no advantage, not to the fouled player nor to Murray, not even the team. Free kick to the Albion should have been awarded. The referee has several seconds to decide whether the advantage materialised or not and can bring the play back.

Personally, if you're going to have advantage then the powers that be should operate a system like in Rugby Union where play can go on a little while before bring play back to the original foul play. Admittedly in rugby it does on occasion seem to go on a bit too long. However, the last time we introduced a rule from RU the refs failed to apply it!!!!

 

[Buzzer]

This has been bugging the hell out of me so I did a bit of googling and it is difficult to find anything on it but I did find this. It's from a US site but even so, it's still a FIFA registered ref who is giving the reply.

He reckons that the ref has given advantage to a player who then chooses to play an offside pass so the player is at fault for wasting the opportunity. The ref should then give the free kick for the offside. I guess this is another way of explaining the team v player advantage. The only thing is that this doesn't look like a specific change or new rule. It does however make perfect sense to me.

http://asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/18904/

 

[drew]

This has been bugging the hell out of me so I did a bit of googling and it is difficult to find anything on it but I did find this. It's from a US site but even so, it's still a FIFA registered ref who is giving the reply.

He reckons that the ref has given advantage to a player who then chooses to play an offside pass so the player is at fault for wasting the opportunity. The ref should then give the free kick for the offside. I guess this is another way of explaining the team v player advantage. The only thing is that this doesn't look like a specific change or new rule. It does however make perfect sense to me.

http://asktheref.com/Soccer Rules/Question/18904/

Difficult to compare the two without seeing a video of the incident the ref is referring to. I would guess that if a player is fouled but runs on and the ref waves play on then a few seconds later he crosses or passes to a player in an offside position then that player has wasted the advantage given. In the OP case the player was fouled and the ball immediately fell to Murray in the offside position. The ref has a few seconds to decide if an advantage was gained so quite clearly there wasn't and should have brought play back.

As for the attachment, as you say, it is still just one referees giving his interpretation.

 

[Triggaaar]

Very rich given your tone of comments.

Try reading the thread again, I wasn't rude to you at all.

If you've played the game, you'd know the rules better. Simple as that.

Ah bless, you're having another go at patronising. If at first you don't succeed eh

I answered a question that the OP asked. Several people have thanked me for it.

Mum must be so proud.

You on the other hand have been a total d*ck about it.

Not at all, I don't think your explanation made sense, so I questioned it, that's all. And you come back with nonsense about playing the game, as if you've got any idea how much I've played. And reading the rest of the thread it seems that the others you were so sure understood you don't actually agree either.

So yes, go and get some experience in the game and perhaps you'll start to understand it

Oh you're having another go, but it's still not working. I do admire your determination sweetie, but it's not working out. Maybe have a lolly and then try something else.

instead of whinging that you don't agree with the rules.

It's not the rules I don't agree with, it's you. You haven't even quoted the rules.

Good bye

Bye