Jump to content

Advantage rule


gnasher75

Recommended Posts

Just looking for a bit of clarity on the advantage rule to know if I was right to be screaming at the ref three times yesterday. I was screaming at him on lots of other occasions for other things too!

 

Twice Rangers were awarded a free kick when play was bought back for a foul a considerable length of time. I am pretty sure the rule is "a few seconds" not until the other team win possession and look like they might have a dangerous attack!

 

The other time was when Henderson got scythed down at the edge of the box. The ref played advantage. Boyce had a shot from a difficult angle and it was deflected for the corner. I was screaming for him to go back for the original foul ie a free kick 25 yards out just off centre. Was the referee right? Or should he have awarded a free kick? Or even to give Hearts the choice, as happens in rugby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im guessing had boyce stopped the free kick would have been given but the whole team kept going forward as we did have momentum at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The referee was correct with the advantage when Henderson was scythed down, down, if Boyce's shot goes in instead of being deflected for a corner it would have been a legitimate goal. If Boyce didnt get a shot away and was tackled then he can bring it bag for the free kick as no advantage was obtained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d prefer the rugby rule. If no advantage is gained, you always go back to the site and sanction of the original offence - unless the referee clearly states ‘advantage over’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

Twice Rangers were awarded a free kick when play was bought back for a foul a considerable length of time. I am pretty sure the rule is "a few seconds" not until the other team win possession and look like they might have a dangerous attack!

 

Referees have been encouraged by FIFA in recent years to wait a bit longer, so you're probably still used to what used to be a very immediate second or two--but no longer--advantage/no advantage ruling.

 

38 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

The other time was when Henderson got scythed down at the edge of the box. The ref played advantage. Boyce had a shot from a difficult angle and it was deflected for the corner. I was screaming for him to go back for the original foul ie a free kick 25 yards out just off centre. Was the referee right? Or should he have awarded a free kick? Or even to give Hearts the choice, as happens in rugby.

 

There's nothing in the laws currently that would allow the referee to consult with the offended team to see whether they prefer advantage or not--it's all in the referee's hands. Still, as said above, the advantage materialised in the decent shot opportunity we had that got deflected out--that's how it works in football for now, but it's an interesting idea you propose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no

Another incident that caught my eye was the role of the 4th official.
 

Rangers repeatedly got away with stealing yards at throw ins. 

 

however when we moved up a few feet the 4th official pulled us back. I have quickly scanned his remit in the rule book and cannot see this being within it. Am I right ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I Iike the advantage rule but It is the consistency at which it is applied which is the problem. Clearly the ref yesterday applied different rules for rangers than he did for Hearts. It was one of the most biased ref performances in a while. Glad we won which gets it right up them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

Another incident that caught my eye was the role of the 4th official.
 

Rangers repeatedly got away with stealing yards at throw ins. 

 

however when we moved up a few feet the 4th official pulled us back. I have quickly scanned his remit in the rule book and cannot see this being within it. Am I right ? 

 

The players must take instruction from all four referees, including the fourth.

 

Whether McLean as the centre referee has asked his fourth official specifically to help him with throw-in positioning, or whether the fourth official was overstepping what he was supposed to be doing within that team of referees, who can say.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no
1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

The players must take instruction from all four referees, including the fourth.

 

Whether McLean as the centre referee has asked his fourth official specifically to help him with throw-in positioning, or whether the fourth official was overstepping what he was supposed to be doing within that team of referees, who can say.

 

There is a “anything delegated by the ref clause” 

 

that’s probably their way round it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much preferred the old instant advantage interpretation.  Sometimes came to nothing or the ref got it wrong.

 

As with VAR the search for perfection in subjective decision making in a flowing sport is not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

There is a “anything delegated by the ref clause” 

 

that’s probably their way round it

 

It's more just that in general the Laws of the Game and Advice to Referees documents leave a lot unsaid--referees are free to organise how they are going to officiate a match to a pretty wide latitude (within reason). The Laws don't micromanage things like this.

 

Alim's point above about bias would be true though no matter how referees' duties were laid out--bias will defeat even the most well conceived schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely we aren't getting to the stage of marking lines where throw ins need to be taken from.  :)

 

Officials just need to be stronger.  Keepers certainly should be booked more for taking the piss.

 

As a PS, Clare stole a good 10 yards at one throw on the main stand side.

 

 

Edited by DETTY29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanks said no
1 minute ago, DETTY29 said:

Surely we aren't getting to the stage of marking lines where throw ins beed to  e taken from.  :)

 

Officials just need to be stronger.  Keepers certainly should be booked more for taking piss.

 

As a PS, Clare stole a good 10 yards at one throw on the main stand side.

 

 

Pretty sure it was Clare who was told off by the 4th official. 
 

I was curious as I automatically yelled to mind his own business and then wondered if I was wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gnasher75 said:

Just looking for a bit of clarity on the advantage rule to know if I was right to be screaming at the ref three times yesterday. I was screaming at him on lots of other occasions for other things too!

 

Twice Rangers were awarded a free kick when play was bought back for a foul a considerable length of time. I am pretty sure the rule is "a few seconds" not until the other team win possession and look like they might have a dangerous attack!

 

The other time was when Henderson got scythed down at the edge of the box. The ref played advantage. Boyce had a shot from a difficult angle and it was deflected for the corner. I was screaming for him to go back for the original foul ie a free kick 25 yards out just off centre. Was the referee right? Or should he have awarded a free kick? Or even to give Hearts the choice, as happens in rugby.


The answer is it depends if it’s an advantage to Rangers or not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Surely we aren't getting to the stage of marking lines where throw ins need to be taken from.  :)

 

Officials just need to be stronger.  Keepers certainly should be booked more for taking the piss.

 

As a PS, Clare stole a good 10 yards at one throw on the main stand side.

 

 

 

And it was a beautiful thing to watch!!!

 

But it really shouldn't be beyond the ref and linesmen to ensure that throws ins and free kicks (including by keepers from offsides) get taken in the right place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one in the first half didn't seem right. It was a foul by boyce but the ref played advantage and the rangers player misplaced his pass, leading to a hearts interception. It's not hearts fault they failed to take advantage of their advantage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers for the responses.

 

With the Henderson one, I get that if Boyce had scored we would have got the advantage and we'd all have been delighted. But his shot was blocked.

 

If he'd stopped playing, we'd have got the free kick.

 

If he'd fallen over, miskicked it or been tackled, we'd have got the free kick.

 

If he'd scuffed it and McGregor had caught it, would we have got the free kick?

 

If he had shot wide, would it have been a goal kick?

 

In other words, on what basis does the ref decide that the advantage is over?

 

The advantages given to Rangers were not only a much longer time period but they also had several opportunities to build their attack before it was taken back.

 

It just seems an anomaly to me if the point is to give the advantage to the attacking team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...