|
Post by flat3 on Nov 20, 2008 21:58:14 GMT -6
First, I apologize if this question has been asked already. Second, I don't intend to criticize any referees. This is a genuine question. To PutMe: Please remove if this is inappropriate. I am not a ref, and I DO appreciate LA refs who put their time and effort. After having watched LA soccer (from youth to high school) for many years, however, I could never figure out one thing compared to officiating in other regions (other countries). It's about advantage. I have seen so many occasions in which LA referees stopped the play when the beneficiary of that call had a possession. I feel like seeing more "advantage, play on" situations outside LA (or outside US). There are many many situations in which a good development was thwarted by fouls. Fouls are so defined because they would give an advantage to those who commit them if not called. If a foul is called and a well-developed play is stopped, the aggressor will gain an advantage, which is reverse to the philosophy behind "fouls." I know they can even give cards after letting the play continue. Or refs can let the play continue and call it after making sure that that call doesn't hurt the other team. Am I missing something? Am I wrong in my interpretation of the rule? Is there any reason why "advantages" are not called often here?
|
|
|
Post by futbolislife on Nov 21, 2008 8:09:11 GMT -6
I just had this discussion last night with a group of soccer players. Your basic understanding is correct. Lets remember that possession alone is not advantage. The purpose of calling a foul vs advantage is to very quickly make a decision as to which decision yields a better opportunity for the offended team. Most assessors and instructors at the youth level advise referees that there is almost (emphasis on ALMOST) never an advantage in the teams defending half. This is not an absolute. Referees have the ability to "play on" to see if the advantage truly develops. IF it doesn't, the referee has about 3 seconds to come back after having said "play on". So referees can wait and see and come back.
But there is one component of this not discussed, and that is player management and player control. There may be reasons to stop play to deal with a player (not necessarily a booking). Yes they can come back later and deal with them but there are times you want to stop play, unless you have a really good advantage.
At the professional and international levels, referees are being instructed to different standards, so we cannot necessarily use those standards or compare what referees at the youth/HS level are doing.
Again, as always, my humble opinion. Hope that helped.
And I did not take your post as negative or a criticism.
|
|
|
Post by number3 on Nov 21, 2008 15:55:38 GMT -6
Excellent observation, presentation of the question, and appropriate answer. This is what the forum is intended for.
+1
|
|
|
Post by flat3 on Nov 22, 2008 1:10:36 GMT -6
Thank you for your excellent answer, futbolislife, as number3 wrote. I didn't think too much about the player management, and it is a very good point. I still hope refs let them play a little more than they allow now.... Here is another related, but a fundamentally different question. Say, an assistant ref raises an offside flag near the box, the goalie picked up the ball (no whistle blown), and he is not allowed to play the ball, though it's to his advantage for doing so (by punting or quick feed). The play is always stopped at any level (high school or World Cup). Why is that, given the principle of giving an advantage to the offended team? For an entertainment aspect, quick replays seem better also....
|
|
|
Post by futbolislife on Nov 22, 2008 9:49:22 GMT -6
On the offside question, most referees agree that the ball in the GKs hand is more of an advantage than to stop play and award a free kick. In my experience, the whistle to stop play is usually a result of a quick whistle. Most refs will say after the fact that they wish they could've swallowed the whistle.
But you also have the situation where the ball goes through, an attacking player and GK are both running onto the ball full speed. No whistle will often lead to a collision or a hard challenge. And the aftermath of that may not be pretty or desirable. But in this case, you have to have a referee who has seen enough to quickly project ahead to that scenario.
But, again, in my opinion, usually a quick whistle is the reason.
But let us all realize that advantage is one of the few times referees have to look into the future. So many times, they/we make a wrong guess. After the fact is always easy to judge and say what should've been.
When they guess right and it results in a goal, referees will really beam inside. As an assessor, I've learned when a referee has an advantage that results in a goal, your first comment in the post game debrief should always be on that advantage/goal becasue they are pretty proud. And as they should.
As always, just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by flat3 on Nov 22, 2008 12:38:43 GMT -6
Thank you for your detailed comments again, futbolislife. I don't think I made myself clear in the off-side question, though. I was asking about the situation in which no whistle is blown, the play stopped with the ball in the goalie's hand, and the assistant ref. raised the flag. Thus, no one other than him/her realized the offside until the play stopped. I always see the ball on the ground (resulting from off-side) rather than the goalie punting. The ball is called back even after the goalie makes a quick feed, aiming for a fast break. Can you call the advantage in this case? By the way, I found your comment on the referee being proud of having let the play lead to a goal very interesting. Yes, they should be proud in cases like this. All the power for a good ref like them. ;D
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Nov 22, 2008 13:52:53 GMT -6
depending where the offside occurs, it may be more advantageous to have the free kick given. punt it.
For example, if the offside is 35 yards from the goal line, but you allow the keeper to punt it, you are at least 17 yards from where it occured. Most teams would prefer to have teh free kick and the additional position up field. If the offside was near the penalty area, then the keeper should be allowed to punt it.
One other thing on advantage...a very wise national assessor once told me that for a true advantage to have occured, the player must be in a better position after the foul. Just having the ball at his feet is not an advantage. If they aren't better off, then call the foul. If more than 3-4 advanatges are called in a match, then it is not being applied properly. Advantage should rarely, if ever, be called in the defending 3rd. Infrequently in the middle 3rd.
|
|
|
Post by futbolislife on Nov 22, 2008 17:38:35 GMT -6
The point on location of the offside to determine punt vs offside whistle is a good one
|
|
|
Post by flat3 on Nov 23, 2008 0:32:05 GMT -6
One other thing on advantage...a very wise national assessor once told me that for a true advantage to have occured, the player must be in a better position after the foul. Just having the ball at his feet is not an advantage. If they aren't better off, then call the foul. If more than 3-4 advanatges are called in a match, then it is not being applied properly. Advantage should rarely, if ever, be called in the defending 3rd. Infrequently in the middle 3rd. I understand this reasoning, though I may not agree. According to this reasoning, goalies are never allowed to punt when an offside occurs. And I BELIEVE THIS IS what's happening. Punts are not a clear advantage over free kicks even near the goal line, so that WHENEVER AN OFFSIDE OCCURS, the play stops, and a free kick is taken, instead of a punt. Again, while I do not agree with this, this is understandable, and this probably answered my original question.
|
|
|
Post by flat3 on Nov 23, 2008 0:33:13 GMT -6
The point on location of the offside to determine punt vs offside whistle is a good one I agree. But as far as I know, this doesn't happen in games. Happyjack's explanation explains why it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Nov 24, 2008 16:01:12 GMT -6
One other thing on advantage...a very wise national assessor once told me that for a true advantage to have occured, the player must be in a better position after the foul. Just having the ball at his feet is not an advantage. If they aren't better off, then call the foul. If more than 3-4 advanatges are called in a match, then it is not being applied properly. Advantage should rarely, if ever, be called in the defending 3rd. Infrequently in the middle 3rd. I understand this reasoning, though I may not agree. According to this reasoning, goalies are never allowed to punt when an offside occurs. And I BELIEVE THIS IS what's happening. Punts are not a clear advantage over free kicks even near the goal line, so that WHENEVER AN OFFSIDE OCCURS, the play stops, and a free kick is taken, instead of a punt. Again, while I do not agree with this, this is understandable, and this probably answered my original question. Not sure why you say this never happens in games, saw it yesterday in 2 different amateur matches and today in a high school match. Experienced referees allow the keeper to punt the ball if he is in a better position than a free kick would be. Offside is frequently waved down by officials when the keeper is in possession
|
|
|
Post by flat3 on Nov 30, 2008 14:43:29 GMT -6
Not sure why you say this never happens in games, saw it yesterday in 2 different amateur matches and today in a high school match. Experienced referees allow the keeper to punt the ball if he is in a better position than a free kick would be. Offside is frequently waved down by officials when the keeper is in possession Ok, I guess I don't pay enough attention. When I watch international matches, I see too often that GK has been stripped of the "advantages." Thanks for your reply.
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Dec 2, 2008 20:08:24 GMT -6
It can also be determined by the level of play. At the international level, probably only about half the time does the kepper release the ball by punting, he often throws or rolls to a player close to him, or puts on the ground and kicks it anyway. At teh youth level, rarely do they do anything but punt, high school is probably 4 or 5-1 on punts versus other, and college is about 3-1 the same way. Of course, all of this is thrwon out the window if your team is losing...
|
|
|
Post by PutMeInCoach2 on Dec 7, 2008 19:14:09 GMT -6
One other thing on advantage...a very wise national assessor once told me that for a true advantage to have occured, the player must be in a better position after the foul. Just having the ball at his feet is not an advantage. If they aren't better off, then call the foul. If more than 3-4 advanatges are called in a match, then it is not being applied properly. Advantage should rarely, if ever, be called in the defending 3rd. Infrequently in the middle 3rd. I probally have a problem of letting the kids play after a small foul in the middle of the field a little too much. While I can't actually describe how I read to let the play continue or not because it is a reaction rather than a check list call such as offsides. In rec and HS when a foul is given in the middle third, you see majority of the attackers line up on the offsides line waiting for the ball. As a coach I rather play to continue instead of having this sitation to allow my players to continue to make runs and have the spacing in the defense. As to flat3's question, I as well see that from time to time in international matches. While I do feel a punt is better than a kick (in HS a rec), I wonder how much it is in the international level when the strength of the kickers leg is different?? I cannot say as I haven't done any of those games and haven't watched this closely. However, I do watch for this in HS and rec and perhaps an invertant whisle may happen from time to time. Or as futbol tapped on, I don't want a conclusion amongst the players.
|
|