Referees and the 'advantage' rule

[Pavilionaire]

Are these guys making it up as they go along? I just can't see any coherence or logic in how the directive to play the advantage has been implemented in the matches I've seen.

In the last two games at The Amex we've seen fast breakaways from deep in our half brought back for free-kicks when on both occasions it was clear the advantage needed to be played, yet when players are fouled around the penalty area but stay on their feet the refs normally let play go on.

I like the rule but, yet again, inconsistent application is a killer.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It was a wonderful moment in the match last night when Joe Bennett looked to have skilfully evaded two challenges to break into a huge amount of space in front of him, only for it to be bought back for a perceived foul on him. Utterly inexcusable as the referee has a choice to let it play out.

We pay our money to see skills like that, it felt like I'd been robbed of a special moment.

 

[JBizzle]

It was a wonderful moment in the match last night when Joe Bennett looked to have skilfully evaded two challenges to break into a huge amount of space in front of him, only for it to be bought back for a perceived foul on him. Utterly inexcusable as the referee has a choice to let it play out.

We pay our money to see skills like that, it felt like I'd been robbed of a special moment.

A referee ruining the spectacle of a football match? I simply won't hear of it.

 

[rippleman]

I think the performance of last night's referee may have been overlooked in either the excitement of finally winning a game, or the torpor of another basically unexciting performance.

He was truly shocking.

 

[Exile]

It was a wonderful moment in the match last night when Joe Bennett looked to have skilfully evaded two challenges to break into a huge amount of space in front of him, only for it to be bought back for a perceived foul on him. Utterly inexcusable as the referee has a choice to let it play out.

We pay our money to see skills like that, it felt like I'd been robbed of a special moment.

I think the performance of last night's referee may have been overlooked in either the excitement of finally winning a game, or the torpor of another basically unexciting performance.

He was truly shocking.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/content.php?312-Albion-v-Wigan-Athletic-04-11-2014

The crowd were on their feet again minutes later, when Joe Bennett showed great feet, to jink through three challenges, before the referee brought an abrupt halt to a promising situation, by pulling back play for an earlier foul on the left back.

Referee Lee Collins then took centre stage - drawing ire from the stands for his verdict on Adam Forshaw's disgusting tackle from behind on Elliott Bennett, directly in front of the Wigan bench. Collins had to this point, seemed determined to keep his cards in his pocket - in stark contrast to Keith Stroud at Bournemouth - the inconsistency between officials must drive players and clubs mad. On this occassion though, after 70 minutes it was only a matter of which colour - Collins' lenient choice of yellow, incensing the Albion bench, and leading to an angry flare up between Nathan Jones and Uwe Rossler. The Latic's under-pressure manager was furious at the Albion staff's calls for red, but when he watches the incident back, he'll surely admit that his player was extremely fortunate.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

It was a wonderful moment in the match last night when Joe Bennett looked to have skilfully evaded two challenges to break into a huge amount of space in front of him, only for it to be bought back for a perceived foul on him. Utterly inexcusable as the referee has a choice to let it play out.

We pay our money to see skills like that, it felt like I'd been robbed of a special moment.

To be fair to the ref, there was moment just before he beat the second man that Bennett looked like he was going to lose control of the ball, and it was at that moment the ref blew for a foul. I do remember the ref holding his hand up to Bennett as if to say sorry.

 

[Acker79]

To be fair to the ref, there was moment just before he beat the second man that Bennett looked like he was going to lose control of the ball, and it was at that moment the ref blew for a foul. I do remember the ref holding his hand up to Bennett as if to say sorry.

That's what I thought. I honestly thought he had lost it with the third man and before I knew it he had rounded him and the whistle gone.


To the larger point of refs and advantage, I think that a degree of inconsistency should be expected. Firstly because the refs are all individuals, with their own interpretation, and characters. Yes, they should all be applying the same laws, but watch soccer saturday or any football with a few pundits in and you'll see they often disagree, too. Fans on here disagree, and we can all see the laws and how they are meant to be applied.

Secondly, I would like to see some of the referees' critics actually take on a match, and see how well they play the advantage when 8 players on one team turn around and claim a foul, while 23,000 people call for a foul, and only one player actually plays on, see how well they manage to get that balance between making a quick decision and taking their time to make a more considered decision. We often here commentators/pundits complain about how referees are too quick to make a decision, but any time the officials take a moment you get "finally the ref blows his whistle" "eventually the referee makes up his mind", even if he gets it right.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

To be fair to the ref, there was moment just before he beat the second man that Bennett looked like he was going to lose control of the ball, and it was at that moment the ref blew for a foul. I do remember the ref holding his hand up to Bennett as if to say sorry.

No it wasn't. Bennett was 5 yards past the last man, 30 yards from me, when he blew. It wasn't the only time he had trouble finding his mouth with the whistle

 

[Mellotron]

To be fair to the ref, there was moment just before he beat the second man that Bennett looked like he was going to lose control of the ball, and it was at that moment the ref blew for a foul. I do remember the ref holding his hand up to Bennett as if to say sorry.

He didn't wait to see. That's what was frustrating.

 

[Martlet]

It's interesting how the advantage rule compares with rugby vs football. In the former, a referee will generally let play go on until he's certain that no advantage has been gained - and only then bring play back for the original foul.
Football demands an instant decision - and if there's no advantage but the ref has waved play-on, sobeit.
I can't help thinking a move towards rugby's way would benefit the game. It would encourage attackers to try to stay on their feet rather than always play for the foul, and encourage refs to take their time more. I can't really think of a downside to be honest, although sure others will!

 

[Ali_rrr]

To the larger point of refs and advantage, I think that a degree of inconsistency should be expected. Firstly because the refs are all individuals, with their own interpretation, and characters. Yes, they should all be applying the same laws, but watch soccer saturday or any football with a few pundits in and you'll see they often disagree, too. Fans on here disagree, and we can all see the laws and how they are meant to be applied.

Secondly, I would like to see some of the referees' critics actually take on a match, and see how well they play the advantage when 8 players on one team turn around and claim a foul, while 23,000 people call for a foul, and only one player actually plays on, see how well they manage to get that balance between making a quick decision and taking their time to make a more considered decision. We often here commentators/pundits complain about how referees are too quick to make a decision, but any time the officials take a moment you get "finally the ref blows his whistle" "eventually the referee makes up his mind", even if he gets it right.

This. 100x. I would love to some people try to referee even at Conference level. They would massively struggle. As a referee myself, I hate the advantage rule and tend not to play it unless it's absolutely necessary.

 

[Don Quixote]

There are too many rubbish referees at this level.

 

[marshy68]

It's interesting how the advantage rule compares with rugby vs football. In the former, a referee will generally let play go on until he's certain that no advantage has been gained - and only then bring play back for the original foul.
Football demands an instant decision - and if there's no advantage but the ref has waved play-on, sobeit.
I can't help thinking a move towards rugby's way would benefit the game. It would encourage attackers to try to stay on their feet rather than always play for the foul, and encourage refs to take their time more. I can't really think of a downside to be honest, although sure others will!

I agree with you I think the onus should be on a longer advantage as rugby. However the ref for the wigan game made serveral poor decisions in that respect> I appreciate its a hard job but thought he had a stinker, although he did improve in the second half. The rule that really need changing is when your player is fouled and requires treatment they have to go off. They should also make it that the player that committed the foul has to leave the pitch.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Whilst I thought overall, that referee was one of the worst we've seen this season at the Amex, there was a split second in relation to that Bennett "advantage" where I did kind of feel for him.

He saw Bennett get fouled the first time, waited to see if he'd get the ball, which he did, was going to play on, when it looked for all the world like Bennett was going to get the ball taken off him by the second player.

Unexpectedly to most of us, I think, Bennett came out of the second challenge with the ball, by which time the official, thinking he'd done the right thing by waiting in the first instance, had assumed Bennett had lost it.

Yes, he could have waited a shade longer still, but these momentary things are what make us human, and I, trying to be objective here, could totally understand why he'd done it (and probably knew straight away with the benefit of hindsight that it hadn't worked out as it should).

But yes, the rest of his game was dismal.

 

[Martlet]

The rule that really need changing is when your player is fouled and requires treatment they have to go off. They should also make it that the player that committed the foul has to leave the pitch.

Can't agree with that one more strongly - that's got to be a no-brainer.

 

[marshy68]

Whilst I thought overall, that referee was one of the worst we've seen this season at the Amex, there was a split second in relation to that Bennett "advantage" where I did kind of feel for him.

He saw Bennett get fouled the first time, waited to see if he'd get the ball, which he did, was going to play on, when it looked for all the world like Bennett was going to get the ball taken off him by the second player.

Unexpectedly to most of us, I think, Bennett came out of the second challenge with the ball, by which time the official, thinking he'd done the right thing by waiting in the first instance, had assumed Bennett had lost it.

Yes, he could have waited a shade longer still, but these momentary things are what make us human, and I, trying to be objective here, could totally understand why he'd done it (and probably knew straight away with the benefit of hindsight that it hadn't worked out as it should).

But yes, the rest of his game was dismal.

fair assessment - however, the conclusion is still that he was pants!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

fair assessment - however, the conclusion is still that he was pants!

Fact

 

[BBassic]

I might have the rules mixed up but what really got me riled up was right near the end of the game, their player went down with a head injury and we had possession. Ref rightly stopped play but then didn't have the physio come on for treatment. I thought a head injury was an automatic "get the physio on" situation. Then the sod gave the ball to the Wigan keeper!

Perhaps the ref did the right thing and it was the Wigan keeper being an unsportsmanlike git but surely the ball should have come back to us?

 

[the wanderbus]

I might have the rules mixed up but what really got me riled up was right near the end of the game, their player went down with a head injury and we had possession. Ref rightly stopped play but then didn't have the physio come on for treatment. I thought a head injury was an automatic "get the physio on" situation. Then the sod gave the ball to the Wigan keeper!

Perhaps the ref did the right thing and it was the Wigan keeper being an unsportsmanlike git but surely the ball should have come back to us?

It should have been a drop ball at the point where play was stopped, theres no way the ref shouldve handed it to their keeper 15 yards from where it was when he blew his whistle. Also did anyone notice the amount of times their players brought the ball down with their arms?

 

[BensGrandad]

What happened to the old fashioned drop ball that both teams tried to win? You very rarely see it nowadays.