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

[Triggaaar]

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.

"If the only advantage you envisioned in your call was a pass to this offside-positioned player, you would be correct in bringing the play back for the original foul. This might be the case if you didn't see that the player was in an offside position, but your AR did see it."


Right, so according to him, we should have been given a free kick. Basically what we'd all expect.

Except the opposite of what Telford is saying.

 

[Telford Seagull]

Try reading the thread again, I wasn't rude to you at all.
Ah bless, you're having another go at partonising. If at first you don't succeed eh

Mum must be so proud.
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.

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

'Patronising'

Oh the Irony dear triggaaar.

 

[Triggaaar]

'Patronising'

Oh the Irony dear triggaaar.

Go ahead, can you explain the irony of someone making a typo? Are you trying to say that everything you've got wrong in this thread was just a typo?

How about you read Buzzer's quote, where the ref says that play should be drought back, and then you give some evidence why that ref was wrong?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Law 5 and the advantage the Referee is allowed to play is one of those huge grey areas as there is no stipulation of how long can elapse before that advantage is deemed over, or any other contributing factors to the referee deciding to bring it back.

I don't see how the answer that ref gave Buzzer is covered in Law 5? There is no stipulation of whether the team having the advantage messes it up themselves or not, although once that team has the ball in possession for a period of time at the refs discretion (as said no stipulated time period) then that advantage is said to have been gained.

I'd have to agree though, if you've played on and the player in possession under no pressure plays a pass to a player who is offside, then that is their fault, the referee has given you opportunity to make your attack. If that player playing the pass was under pressure from a tackle however, then I would say the advantage has not been gained so you go back to the foul.

This law has more grey areas than an E.L James novel.

 

[drew]

Law 5 and the advantage the Referee is allowed to play is one of those huge grey areas as there is no stipulation of how long can elapse before that advantage is deemed over, or any other contributing factors to the referee deciding to bring it back.

I don't see how the answer that ref gave Buzzer is covered in Law 5? There is no stipulation of whether the team having the advantage messes it up themselves or not, although once that team has the ball in possession for a period of time at the refs discretion (as said no stipulated time period) then that advantage is said to have been gained.

I'd have to agree though, if you've played on and the player in possession under no pressure plays a pass to a player who is offside, then that is their fault, the referee has given you opportunity to make your attack. If that player playing the pass was under pressure from a tackle however, then I would say the advantage has not been gained so you go back to the foul.

This law has more grey areas than an E.L James novel.

Are you referring to Mr Telford? If so, I'm not sure he's even a ref. Might have attended a course and listened to someone else's interpretation of the rules but not sure he officiates. If he does, I feel sorry for the teams he refs for!!!!

 

[McTavish]

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

This is what the Laws of the Game have to say about advantage

Advantage
[The Refereee] allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds.

Then in the "Other Advice" section
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   
•  the atmosphere of the match

On Saturday, either the ref felt that the the advantage had been gained by the player having the ball in an attacking position with the ability to pass to a teammate and that the decision to pass to Murray was therefore a mistake by the player and so correctly called offside or the ref made a mistake and should have given the free kick (this would be particularly true if the pass was palyed pretty much straightaway and Murray was the only sensible attacking pass that could be made) . Either decision can be correct because as has been previously said, advantage is a very grey area.

Contrary to what Telford Segull said, the advantage must be for the team although as far as I am aware there is and never has been a distinction between an individual having an advantage and the team having the advantage.

 

[Telford Seagull]

Go ahead, can you explain the irony of someone making a typo? Are you trying to say that everything you've got wrong in this thread was just a typo?

How about you read Buzzer's quote, where the ref says that play should be drought back, and then you give some evidence why that ref was wrong?

My comment was nothing to do with your incorrect spelling. More the irony of your patronising tone before accusing someone else of doing the same.

 

[Triggaaar]

My comment was nothing to do with your incorrect spelling.

Fair enough.

More the irony of your patronising tone before accusing someone else of doing the same.

Ah, but I was using a daft patronising tone in reply to your daft effort to patronise, to show just how silly it is. If you have anything useful to say regarding the rules, go ahead, but don't waste your time trying to patronise me or suggesting I play the game (my playing days are sadly behind me).

And FYI, others also seem to be disagreeing with your explanation, so there's no point trying to suggest that everyone else understood you.

 

[Triggaaar]

This is what the Laws of the Game have to say about advantage

Advantage
[The Refereee] allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds.

Ok.

On Saturday, either the ref felt that the the advantage had been gained by the player having the ball in an attacking position with the ability to pass to a teammate and that the decision to pass to Murray was therefore a mistake by the player and so correctly called offside or the ref made a mistake and should have given the free kick (this would be particularly true if the pass was palyed pretty much straightaway

Agreed. The way Buzzer described it, Murray was immediately offside, so the player made the pass very close to the time he was tackled (not after a few seconds), so it should have been a free kick.

and Murray was the only sensible attacking pass that could be made

I can't see how that bit would make any difference.

Either decision can be correct because as has been previously said, advantage is a very grey area.

Only if the pass was a little while after the challenge, and the player wasn't falling while passing etc.

 

[Buzzer]

Law 5 and the advantage the Referee is allowed to play is one of those huge grey areas as there is no stipulation of how long can elapse before that advantage is deemed over, or any other contributing factors to the referee deciding to bring it back.

I don't see how the answer that ref gave Buzzer is covered in Law 5? There is no stipulation of whether the team having the advantage messes it up themselves or not, although once that team has the ball in possession for a period of time at the refs discretion (as said no stipulated time period) then that advantage is said to have been gained.

I'd have to agree though, if you've played on and the player in possession under no pressure plays a pass to a player who is offside, then that is their fault, the referee has given you opportunity to make your attack. If that player playing the pass was under pressure from a tackle however, then I would say the advantage has not been gained so you go back to the foul.

This law has more grey areas than an E.L James novel.

It's amazing isn't it, with the millions of games of football that have been played that we still get scenarios where the law is under debate because it's a novel occurrence. Even the answer I posted yesterday seems to have sparked debate. Just to clarify, I never asked the ref. It's a copy and paste from a question someone posted in 2008 and there is a subtle difference with what happened on Saturday because there wasn't a few seconds between the foul and the offside pass, it was less than a second or two after.

I'll be honest, I've no idea if the ball was played to Murray under duress or freely so I've got no idea if the ref called it right or not but at least I now understand why the ref could have given the decision he did.

 

[McTavish]

and Murray was the only sensible attacking pass that could be made.

Ok.
I can't see how that bit would make any difference.

The reason it makes a difference is that the non-offending team has to have an advantage - if there is no way that an advantage can accrue then advantage should not be played. If there is more than one option and the player takes the wrong one then it could be argued that the player has got the advantage and then messed it up but if there is only one sensible way for the advantage to accrue (pass to an attacking player) and that player is offside then their is no advantage and the foul should be given.

 

[Triggaaar]

The reason it makes a difference is that the non-offending team has to have an advantage - if there is no way that an advantage can accrue then advantage should not be played. If there is more than one option and the player takes the wrong one then it could be argued that the player has got the advantage and then messed it up but if there is only one sensible way for the advantage to accrue (pass to an attacking player) and that player is offside then their is no advantage and the foul should be given.

But the fouled player could have just carried on on his own, without passing, so he has a choice either way.

In rugby they pull back play after a long time, obviously in football you can't go that far before advantage is over, but allowing one second for a player to pass the ball to someone who's offside is clearly not enough. Had the fouled player not been fouled he could have made the pass earlier or better etc.

 

[drew]

But the fouled player could have just carried on on his own, without passing, so he has a choice either way.

In rugby they pull back play after a long time, obviously in football you can't go that far before advantage is over, but allowing one second for a player to pass the ball to someone who's offside is clearly not enough. Had the fouled player not been fouled he could have made the pass earlier or better etc.

Exactly. What would make sense is for the ref to determine whether the advantage has worked out better for the team rather than awarding the free kick. Waiting one second for a pass to an offside player and then giving offside is nonsensical. The rules would allow it but I suspect it is beyond the wit of most at the PGMOL (yet rugby refs take it in their stride!!).

 

[Triggaaar]

Exactly. What would make sense is for the ref to determine whether the advantage has worked out better for the team rather than awarding the free kick. Waiting one second for a pass to an offside player and then giving offside is nonsensical.

Agreed.

The rules would allow it but I suspect it is beyond the wit of most at the PGMOL

To be honest I don't think the intention of the rules is to allow such a call. It's clearly no advantage. They obviously want the rules to be consistent (easier said than done, but that's the intention), and it clearly isn't consistent to give that offside.

If it's a few seconds before the ref realises a player is offside, that could cause their mistake. But let's be clear, it is a mistake.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Until very recently, the Advantage law was very simple, either the ref plays advantage or he doesn't. Its only been a couple of years or so where they've called the play back if an advantage didn't accrue, and there is certainly no consistency in this, and it remains very rare where they allow advantage to play for more than 2 or 3 seconds before calling it back.

 

[McTavish]

But the fouled player could have just carried on on his own, without passing, so he has a choice either way.

In rugby they pull back play after a long time, obviously in football you can't go that far before advantage is over, but allowing one second for a player to pass the ball to someone who's offside is clearly not enough. Had the fouled player not been fouled he could have made the pass earlier or better etc.

I was going to add unless the player can run with the ball himself or similar. I was thinking about a situation where the only reasonable attacking option is the pass. I tend to agree that the ref has made a mistake but I didn't see the incident myself so it is possible that he didn't - he felt that the advantage had been gained and the player then mucked it up.