Time for an Advantage Rule in Football

denisc

The unholy mess that is the Gaelic Football rulebook shows no sign of being tackled any time soon.
Any sport that requires referees to ignore transgressions in order to allow play "to flow" is a very flawed sport indeed. Referees are expected to "use common sense" which, in effect, means allowing a non-stop succession of petty fouling (mostly pulling/mauling the opponent) to go unpunished.
The best way to promote free-flowing football I can think of is to dish out 10 or 12 yellow cards in the first 20 minutes to the persistent foulers, but given that this is a "man's game" (ask Colm O Rourke) referees aren't comfortable doing this.
Given that state of affairs, it is long past the time when an advantage style rule (a la rugby union) was introduced.
Example: Player is wins possession on 20m line, is fouled but breaks free. Ref calls advantage.Play goes on, player shoots for a point and misses. Play is brought back for the free.


Anyone agree?

Pete_Cavan

denisc wrote: »

The best way to promote free-flowing football I can think of is to dish out 10 or 12 yellow cards in the first 20 minutes to the persistent foulers

Im going to pretend I didnt see that...

One great rule than went before congress this year was than when a player is fouled, if they want to take a quick free they do not have to take the free from the exact spot where they were fouled and instead get 5 yards grace in which to take the free. This means if you are fouled on the run, and your momentum takes you beyond the point you were fouled, you can take the free straight away and not have to go back. This would speed up the game, keeping in flowing and making the game more enjoyable for spectators. It would also help to cut out cynical play where - after a turnover, a forward might foul a player to slow up the counterattack and allow his backs to get organised - becuase the game keeps moving and there is no extra time for backs to get organised. The ref can always go back to give a yellow card if deserved.

I havent heard anything more about this rule so I'll take it it was rejected. If they did reject this rule it just proves how retarded congress is.

Carawaystick

I watched a few matches in Féile down in Párc Uí Caoimh last weekend, the girls and boys finals. The two refs seemed to put their arms out for advantage ala rugby for a lot of foul play, the girls football seemed to bring play where no real advantage accrued back fro a free more than the boys, this may be a different rule in ladies football or a different ref. but the games flowed more than most senior football games, esp compare to the game in Killarney the next day.


I think in Football, the time for an advantage to happen will be much shorter than in rugby, as rugby allows more time to score a try than a penalty, where a goal chance in football is a fairly slim opportunity, once defenders get back ( compared to rugby)

I'd go for a fairly loosely defined advantage, the same time as you can hold onto the ball for an advantage to occur or the ref to put the hand out and maybe double the time to gain an definite advantage.
you could just be slow to blow for a free where advantage is wasted and change no rules...

Cill Dara Abu

What is a foul in Gaelic Football??

Nobody knows and thats where the problem lies.

The tackle is a huge grey area that needs to be sorted out!

denisc

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

What is a foul in Gaelic Football??

Nobody knows and thats where the problem lies.

We all know what a foul is according to the rules.
The problem is that if you were to go out and blow for every foul, you would have a free every 30 seconds. The situation is an unworkable joke I know, but an advantage rule would at least make cynical fouling slightly less rewarding than it is at the moment.

Pete-Cavan,
Your quick free idea is spot on and any ref that doesnt already allow it to happen deserves a kick in the arse.
But re pretending not to see that one....
How many fouls do you think each player should be allowed in a match before a yellow?
The current criticism of referees from the likes of CO'R and all this pallaver about the "manliness" in football and it becoming a non-contact sport is horse****. There is nothing worse than seeing promising moves ended time and time and time again by cynical clawing and tugging. Mayo-Galway had 52 frees and the ref was slagged off for handing out yellow cards!!? Players were committing blatant fouls-he merely applied the rules. If he deserves criticism, it's because he didnt send a few fellas off! Paying spectators deserve to see a bit of football and not the pulling/dragging muck we get at present.

amacachi

denisc wrote: »

How many fouls do you think each player should be allowed in a match before a yellow?
This stuff we get about the "manliness" in football and it becoming a non-contact sport is horse****. There is nothing worse than seeing promising moves ended time and time and time again by cynical clawing and tugging. Mayo-Galway had 52 frees and the ref was slagged off for handing out yellow cards!!? Players were committing blatant fouls-he merely applied the rules. If he deserves criticism, it's because he didnt send a few fellas off. Paying spectators deserve to see a bit of football

Lack of consistency is a huge issue IMO. I think it was the league final this year a Louth player hit the most perfect shoulder I've ever seen and dazed/knocked out the opposition player with it. No rule was broken but he got a yellow card. Something similar happened in a match about a month ago but two weeks ago a shoulder to someone's chest was allowed by the referee.
Also as you say the number of fouls is important. Sometimes a referee will give a yellow for a cynical foul early on while later on it takes a few in quick succession for a yellow.

blackbelt

Persistant fouling is where the real issue lies.The "flow of the game" is not the referees responsibility,thats the players responsibility.Colm O Rourke has been right though in his half time criticism of the referee in the Dublin-Kildare game but generally referees have been given too much of a hard time over the rules in which they are instructed to apply.

I also believe the free against Kildare was a free.The referee saw the incident which RTE didn't pick up but because of RTE's shoddy camera work,they say its controversial.Well done to the referee in that case.It was the correct decision whether its the 5th minute of the first half or the last minute of injury time.

There is certainly no advantage in pulling a player back but there is an advantage rule that referees can be marked or commented on when being assessed.For example,I had been assessed and had been complimented for allowing advantage for a player who had been fouled but was able to continue going with and pursuing the ball for the advantage of a point or possible goal.More than likely the advantage rule applies to players attacking rather than defenders coming out with the ball.

To allow extra yards for a free though isn't applicable or really fair.Where the player is fouled,it should be taken from the requisite spot or thereabouts.Players seem to be able to take a few steps anyway.

Clareman

IMVHO, there's a very easy solution to the persistant fouling issue, sin bin, ref's are slow to give yellow cards for "small" fouls becuase they know they'll have to send players off if they foul again, if there was a sin bin for a second yellow where a player is sent off for 10 minutes this would mean that it would be "easier" to book players.

The main problem I see with an advantage rule is where do you draw the line? do you allow for a certain amount of time? certain amount of plays? what? I'm guessing people are thinking of the rugby advantage rule, which works brilliantly well, but I don't think this would be workable in a faster, more open game like football, in rugby there's a clear advantage (field position, score) and it's a slower game where the ref is able to keep up with play and is constantly giving verbal updates, I don't think any ref would be able to keep up with play and notify players that advantage is being played or not.

Play the whistle is still 1 of the key mantras of the GAA imo

Pete_Cavan

denisc wrote: »

But re pretending not to see that one....
How many fouls do you think each player should be allowed in a match before a yellow?
The current criticism of referees from the likes of CO'R and all this pallaver about the "manliness" in football and it becoming a non-contact sport is horse****. There is nothing worse than seeing promising moves ended time and time and time again by cynical clawing and tugging. Mayo-Galway had 52 frees and the ref was slagged off for handing out yellow cards!!? Players were committing blatant fouls-he merely applied the rules. If he deserves criticism, it's because he didnt send a few fellas off! Paying spectators deserve to see a bit of football and not the pulling/dragging muck we get at present.

Handing out yellow cards willy-nilly is not the answer. I would be worried that doing what the OP suggests (ie. dishing out 10 or 12 yellow cards in the first 20 minutes) will result in soccer-style tactics of players trying to get each other booked and sent off. I also think the game should be 15 a side as much as possible (from a spectators point of view) so I will refer you to my post here on how to deal with persistent foulers.

Clareman wrote: »

IMVHO, there's a very easy solution to the persistant fouling issue, sin bin, ref's are slow to give yellow cards for "small" fouls becuase they know they'll have to send players off if they foul again, if there was a sin bin for a second yellow where a player is sent off for 10 minutes this would mean that it would be "easier" to book players.

The main problem I see with an advantage rule is where do you draw the line? do you allow for a certain amount of time? certain amount of plays? what?

Exactly. I dont think the advantage rule would work in GAA as it does in rugby because rugby has structured phases of play - unlike GAA. For example, if there is a foul at a ruck in rugby the ref can allow the play to the develop to the next ruck. The ref can determine how much of an advantage the attaching team has had by how much ground they are gaining with each subsequent ruck, so if they are moving forward and have momentum just play on, if they aren't going anywhere just go back for the penalty.

GAA is different, you dont really have defined phases of play. How long does a ref play advantage before going back for a free? Is it a certain number of seconds or just one kick of the ball? There would be so much inconsistency from ref to ref. What if one ref only plays 5 seconds advantage, then the attaching team loses possession and therefore gained no real advantage, but another ref gives thirty seconds advantage and the the team lost possession but got to go back for the free. With the first ref, the advantage rule didnt benefit the team that was fouled at all and may have been better off stopping the game and just taking the free the way we normally do. With the second ref, we have wasted twenty seconds of meaning play and the ball has to be brought back to where the foul was (perhaps 80m back) and we end up losing close to a minute in total. I dont think either situation is good for the game

Like I said, the best solution is; if it is foul let the ref blow the whistle and acknowledge the foul, but let the play in possession keep playing - therefore, the player who was fouled gets the benefit of keeping momentum with his team and the play who committed the foul has not benefitted at all. The supporters benefit by watching a more free flowing game where the ball is in play longer and where cynical fouls are of no benefit (because the cynical foul does not stop the attaching teams momentum or waste time)

denisc

This thread is starting to go all over the shop so I'll stick to the advantage rule. My suggestion is for fouls committed inside the 40m line.
We currently have a bastardized version of the advantage "rule" which goes something like this....

• Gooch wins the ball 25m out, beats his marker and heads towards goal.
• The defender pulls Gooch by the arm and manages to get back goalside.
• Gooch has to check his run.
• The referee acknowledges the foul raising his arm with the open palm "inviting" Gooch to continue on.
• Gooch kicks for a point but under pressure from the defender sticks it wide.

The result?
Gooch has been denied a chance of a goal by the foul and doesn't even get the consolation prize of a free in front of the posts. The defender who illegally prevented a clear goal-scoring opportunity is(usually) not even spoken to.

My suggestion is simple...in situations like that the ref calls "advantage".
If Gooch kicks the point, well and good.
If he kicks and misses, award the free.
If he passes allow the move to continue. I see no problem with allowing advantage until a score has been attempted. Why not? -in nearly all cases that will happen within 15 seconds at the very most.
Again we have either a score or the free.

GAAman

Not meaning to offend but that is a really dumb idea. If a player is given advantage then it is on the player, if they continue play and miss they missed not because they were fouled (assuming there was no injury) but because they missed, end of.

The method suggested is madness

Edit:

denisc wrote: »

• Gooch wins the ball 25m out, beats his marker and heads towards goal.
• The defender pulls Gooch by the arm and manages to get back goalside.
• Gooch has to check his run.
• The referee acknowledges the foul raising his arm with the open palm "inviting" Gooch to continue on.
• Gooch kicks for a point but under pressure from the defender sticks it wide.

The result?
Gooch has been denied a chance of a goal by the foul and doesn't even get the consolation prize of a free in front of the posts. The defender who illegally prevented a clear goal-scoring opportunity is(usually) not even spoken to.

Gooch has not been denied the goal because he was fouled, he has been denied the goal because the defender did their job, defend!

johnmcdnl

GAAman wrote: »

Not meaning to offend but that is a really dumb idea. If a player is given advantage then it is on the player, if they continue play and miss they missed not because they were fouled (assuming there was no injury) but because they missed, end of.

The method suggested is madness

Edit:



Gooch has not been denied the goal because he was fouled, he has been denied the goal because the defender did their job, defend!

gooch was in a good position that he got into by beating the defender...

defender cheats and gets in good position... now if gooch misses apparently it's ok because he wasn't injured and should be skilful enough to still score... if he misses too bad....

what's the point in trying to make a good run then if the defender can just pull you back and get into a better position.... and not even be penalised???

your post just doesn't make sense...


how could it be fair that the defender is allowed to do his job defending if he cheats and fouls the other player to do his job...

should gooch be allowed 20 steps as well to help him do his job of scoring???

GAAman

johnmcdnl wrote: »

your post just doesn't make sense...

What part doesnt make sense? I am guessing you didnt understand what i was saying, generally advantage will be given to a player who has continued their run and unless another foul is committed that play will continue. In the case that denisc gave gooch carried on with the play and missed, there was a single foul which was recognised by the ref but play, and the gooch continued.

What denisc (and yourself if i understand correctly) contended was that the defender in this case was able to get into a defensive position because of the foul which they would not have been able to without fouling gooch yes?

Well this is called a professional foul and every defender worth his salt has committed it at one point or another, hell i am a forward and i have done it myself in my own half. I was at a club match last weekend and a defender grabbed a forward in what can only be described as a UFC style grapple! The fact remains that this is something forwards have to deal with plain and simple, that defender wants that ball off you and to stop you scoring at all costs.

If the foul was serious the ref would stop play, if advantage was given and the player fluffs it thats on the player, giving them a rehash at it is not a good idea

johnmcdnl

GAAman wrote: »

Well this is called a professional foul and every defender worth his salt has committed it at one point or another, hell i am a forward and i have done it myself in my own half. I was at a club match last weekend and a defender grabbed a forward in what can only be described as a UFC style grapple! The fact remains that this is something forwards have to deal with plain and simple, that defender wants that ball off you and to stop you scoring at all costs.

If the foul was serious the ref would stop play, if advantage was given and the player fluffs it thats on the player, giving them a rehash at it is not a good idea

why not just absoutely nail anyone for committing a professional foul then... straight red card or something... forwards shouldn't have to deal with professional fouls... they don't in any other sport...

why is gaelic football so different and unfair to the attacking player in situations like this

denisc

GAAman.
What I am proposing is that we have an advantage rule similar to the one in rugby. Now you obviously consider that rule "dumb" and "madness" and that "giving a rehash" is not a good idea, but I think the success of the advantage rule in rugby makes a laugh of that notion.

In the example I used above, the defender benefitted from foul play. He saved his team from conceding a possible three points but he should most certainly have not got away scot free. Your reasoning is bizarre to say the least, as it completely favours the fouler and offers nothing to the victim of the foul.

Most defenders will resort to that kind of play if they think they will get away with it, and a lot of people-like your good self-feel that a defender isnt doing his job properly if he's not indulging in the dark arts and mauling the corner forward at every opportunity. Your attitude is "Good luck to him if he can get away with it".

My belief is that that cynical stuff is a cancer in the game and should never go unpenalised. It certainly should not be rewarded and an advantage rule would go some way towards ensuring that.

GAAman

johnmcdnl wrote: »

why not just absoutely nail anyone for committing a professional foul then... straight red card or something... forwards shouldn't have to deal with professional fouls... they don't in any other sport...

why is gaelic football so different and unfair to the attacking player in situations like this

Because it would not warrant a straight red unless the defender straight out punched a forward, as for the part in bold i am not one for soccer but i have seen it happen in that sport many times i am sure it happens in other sports too. As for being unfair to the attacking player, see below in my answer to denisc

denisc wrote: »

GAAman.
What I am proposing is that we have an advantage rule similar to the one in rugby. Now you obviously consider that rule "dumb" and "madness" and that "giving a rehash" is not a good idea, but I think the success of the advantage rule in rugby makes a laugh of that notion.

In the example I used above, the defender benefitted from foul play. He saved his team from conceding a possible three points but he should most certainly have not got away scot free. Your reasoning is bizarre to say the least, as it completely favours the fouler and offers nothing to the victim of the foul.

Most defenders will resort to that kind of play if they think they will get away with it, and a lot of people-like your good self-feel that a defender isnt doing his job properly if he's not indulging in the dark arts and mauling the corner forward at every opportunity. Your attitude is "Good luck to him if he can get away with it".

My belief is that that cynical stuff is a cancer in the game and should never go unpenalised. It certainly should not be rewarded and an advantage rule would go some way towards ensuring that.

Firstly the defender would not get away scot free as you put it, the ref would keep an extra eye on that defender and if there was another instance of it happening you can be damn sure that defender would be seeing a card. As for offering nothing to the victim of the foul the entire point of playing advantage is the fact that the victim as you put it has the ball and is moving at pace, it is an advantage to the forward not the defender in fact if play was stopped for the free kick (assuming this happens outside the box) it actually hinders the forward as the defenders have more time to mass near the goal if need be. With the advantage the forward has the edge plain and simple

Secondly dont ever dare to presume to tell me how i feel and what i think i wouldnt let my closest friends do so let alone some random person online. I made the point about defenders committing these fouls as i have many years experience in both first hand and watching matches. Did i advocate it? No i did not, i stated that it happens.

Thirdly with all due respect the advantage rule in rugby means nothing to the game of gaelic

Lastly you think my reasoning is bizarre, i would ask this have you ever played gaelic football at a decent competitive level? I ask because i have and in numerous occasions have been "gooch" in your hypothetical situation, have been taken out of it from behind because i slipped my man, or lorryed just outside the area so the defender would only concede a free kick instead of a goal or a penalty and so on so forth.

Gaelic referees are intelligent enough (for the most part) to interpret whether a foul merits a stopping of the game or to allow advantage to the victim and i will say it one final time, advantage is not a good thing to the person who committed the fouls team, it is a good thing for the victims team thats why its called ADVANTAGE!

johnmcdnl

GAAman wrote: »

Thirdly with all due respect the advantage rule in rugby means nothing to the game of gaelic

[/B]

what about the soccer advantage rule where play is allowed develop for 10 secondish and if the attacking team get into trouble at any point the referee can call it back for a free kick... if they improve their position or get a good chance then the advantage is allowed.. why couldn't a simple system like this be used... if you get a chance you can take it - if you loose your advantage you get a free...

stops the play from slowing up if it doesn't have to but puts the attacking team in a stronger position as they know they basically have a free chance as if the play goes bad they still have a free to fall back on...

denisc

GAAman,

You're very upset cos I said you advocated cynical fouling by defenders. I would have thought it a fairly logical assumption to make that you advocate fouling when you make statements such as the following
"... this is called a professional foul and every defender worth his salt has committed it at one point or another.Hell i am a forward and i have done it myself in my own half"
Tell me this, if you said that to a young corner back, would he think you were advocating it or condemning it?

And as for "..dont ever dare to presume to tell me how i feel and what i think i wouldnt let my closest friends do so let alone some random person online"

Don't be so bloody precious. We're discussing a rule in Gaelic football for feck's sake - even if you had a valid reason to feel aggrieved, your level of self-righteousness is plain ridiculous.


"the entire point of playing advantage is the fact that the victim as you put it has the ball and is moving at pace"

You certainly have no problem misquoting me! I said nothing of the sort. I said Gooch has been dragged back.His run has been stopped in its tracks. He no longer has a clear run on goal. The goal chance is gone. Did you even read what I wrote??? Clearly not so here it is again:

• Gooch wins the ball 25m out, beats his marker and heads towards goal.
• The defender pulls Gooch by the arm and manages to get back goalside.
• Gooch has to check his run.
• The referee acknowledges the foul raising his arm with the open palm "inviting" Gooch to continue on.
• Gooch kicks for a point but under pressure from the defender sticks it wide.

When the ref waves play on he is effectively saying "Yeah, should be a free but go on! You're still on your feet. See can you score (and tough **** if you can't)"

How the hell is that an "advantage" to the forward???

GAAman

denisc wrote: »

offers nothing to the victim of the foul.

I misquoted you? Really??

denisc wrote: »

How the hell is that an "advantage" to the forward???

Ok firstly you think i am upset, not even slightly but you were trying to tell me my opinion rather than ask it, you assumed my stance and they dont call assumption the mother of all f*ck ups for no reason you know.

I have explained it perfectly well how advantage is beneficial for the attacking team and it doesnt seem to have sunk in so let me try this. I was at a club match today here in derry, an attacking forward was pulled back by a half back some 35 yards from goal. The ref played advantage and said forward went on to score a great goal. Do you honestly think said goal would have been scored if the ref stopped play for a free kick, which subsequently would allow the defenders to group around the area and the forward would probably only get a point from it.

With either stopping for the free the first time or as denisc suggested allowing that forward a second crack at it, the chances of a goal would be almost zero, that fouled player would have been penalised the two points difference (assuming he had even scored this hypothetical point) because of the stop in play. But the play didnt stop and that forward added a goal to his tally. Does this not seem beneficial to the forward rather than the defender?

Or would you find fault in what i have said here too??

denisc

GAAman
Re the misquote, I was not referring to your use of the word "victim". I was referring to your statement that "he has the ball and is moving at pace" which was totally at variance with the Gooch situation I had described and which you still refuse (apparently) to address.
Regardless I'm happy to address your latest bizarre contribution re the Derry match.

"Do you honestly think said goal would have been scored if the ref stopped play for a free kick, which subsequently would allow the defenders to group around the area and the forward would probably get a point from it."

READ MY POSTS FFS!!!
I DON'T WANT THE REF TO STOP PLAY FOR THE FREE KICK.
I WANT THE PLAYER TO BE ALLOWED CONTINUE ON GOAL.
IF HE MISSES WE APPLY A "REAL" ADVANTAGE RULE AND GO BACK FOR THE FREE.
THE FOULER GETS AT LEAST SOME DESERVED PUNISHMENT FOR HIS FOUL.

I think the word you used was "dumb"?

wixfjord

Great example of the stupidity of this rule in the GAA in the Cork Galway hurling game yesterday.
Joe Canning dragged down but got up and stuck the ball in the net. However, ref blows it up and free given.
****ing crazy, and typical GAA not to have sorted this out.

denisc

wixfjord:
"Great example of the stupidity of this rule in the GAA in the Cork Galway hurling game yesterday.
Joe Canning dragged down but got up and stuck the ball in the net. However, ref blows it up and free given.
****ing crazy, and typical GAA not to have sorted this out."

Problem is there is no rule.
Refs should have power to let play continue and to bring it back for the free if Canning blasts it wide. If they did, we wouldnt have situations like Cannings yesterday.
The rule works very well in rugby and there is no reason that it can't be adapted for GAA.

GAAman

denisc wrote: »

GAAman
Re the misquote, I was not referring to your use of the word "victim". I was referring to your statement that "he has the ball and is moving at pace" which was totally at variance with the Gooch situation I had described and which you still refuse (apparently) to address.
Regardless I'm happy to address your latest bizarre contribution re the Derry match.

"Do you honestly think said goal would have been scored if the ref stopped play for a free kick, which subsequently would allow the defenders to group around the area and the forward would probably get a point from it."

READ MY POSTS FFS!!!
I DON'T WANT THE REF TO STOP PLAY FOR THE FREE KICK.
I WANT THE PLAYER TO BE ALLOWED CONTINUE ON GOAL.
IF HE MISSES WE APPLY A "REAL" ADVANTAGE RULE AND GO BACK FOR THE FREE.
THE FOULER GETS AT LEAST SOME DESERVED PUNISHMENT FOR HIS FOUL.

I think the word you used was "dumb"?

I could rise to your bait, but i am much better than that, if advantage is played and a player misses a shot thats on their own head. It is as simple as that, the idea to stop play after a miss and give them another try is quite frankly retarded in my opinion.

I have given my reasons for my opinion and will offer no more to this thread

LuckyGent88

wixfjord wrote: »

Great example of the stupidity of this rule in the GAA in the Cork Galway hurling game yesterday.
Joe Canning dragged down but got up and stuck the ball in the net. However, ref blows it up and free given.
****ing crazy, and typical GAA not to have sorted this out.

that was a joke of a decision. it was a superb goal by Canning and should have stood only for the stupidity of the GAA rulebook. The GAA is stuck in the past.

antoobrien

denisc wrote: »

wixfjord:
"Great example of the stupidity of this rule in the GAA in the Cork Galway hurling game yesterday.
Joe Canning dragged down but got up and stuck the ball in the net. However, ref blows it up and free given.
****ing crazy, and typical GAA not to have sorted this out."

Problem is there is no rule.
Refs should have power to let play continue and to bring it back for the free if Canning blasts it wide. If they did, we wouldnt have situations like Cannings yesterday.
The rule works very well in rugby and there is no reason that it can't be adapted for GAA.

There are two rules - rule 4.36 (technical foul) & 5.35 (aggressive foul) from the playing rules (aka part 2 of the official guide).The wording is identical so here's 4.36

When a team commits a technical foul, the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be the advantage of the opposing team. He shall signal that advantage is being played by raising an extended arm upright. Once he allows play to continue, he may not subsequently award a free for that foul. He shall apply any relevant disciplinary action.

The problem with the current rule is the bit in bold there - the offender can nullify the advantage after the referee has decided to play on.

We saw two examples of this rule on Saturday in Limerick - the Canning incident and Hayes's goal (where Cusack was booked for the rugby tackle). My problem with the Canning incident is that the ref blew the free after he got past the man the man (who was still attempting to drag him back) - waiting another second before blowing the whistle could have left Canning clear

nice_guy80

if Joe had missed the shot then people would be giving out that he was fouled and the referee never blew.

you cannot please some people.

but yes, the referee should have read the situation quickly and known that a score was very likely from play, then gone back and spoken to the defender

Squareball2010

nice_guy80 wrote: »

if Joe had missed the shot then people would be giving out that he was fouled and the referee never blew.

you cannot please some people.

but yes, the referee should have read the situation quickly and known that a score was very likely from play, then gone back and spoken to the defender

It has to be said the ref last week in that instance made a big blunder! All it would have taken would have been to wait that extra second before blowing to decipher if an advantage exists or not? I think the problem with alot of referees these days is that they are whistle happy and they dont tend to allow themselves that extra few seconds to make up their minds and consider the scenario.

It happened in a club game of mine last weekend...I had mistimed a pull across the attacker as he attempted to pick up the ball out wide on the 21m line...it was a foul granted ( as I well knew) but he had managed to pick the ball and break the tackle...luckily for me the ref blew it up and didnt allow the advantage! PROBLEM? He admitted himself to not seeing the advantage! Lets just say he got f***ed out of it for blowing the free! His reply of 'Look I blew it up straight away and even if i didnt ye'd stil be complaining!' said it all really that something needs to be done to allow this common sense advantage rule to become clearly defined...allow a ref play advantage and bring it back within 5-10 seconds if an advanatage has not occured to the victims team. Common sense: REMOVE the words a resulting free can not be awarded if advantage is played!

antoobrien

Squareball2010 wrote: »

It has to be said the ref last week in that instance made a big blunder! All it would have taken would have been to wait that extra second before blowing to decipher if an advantage exists or not? I think the problem with alot of referees these days is that they are whistle happy and they dont tend to allow themselves that extra few seconds to make up their minds and consider the scenario.

It happened in a club game of mine last weekend...I had mistimed a pull across the attacker as he attempted to pick up the ball out wide on the 21m line...it was a foul granted ( as I well knew) but he had managed to pick the ball and break the tackle...luckily for me the ref blew it up and didnt allow the advantage! PROBLEM? He admitted himself to not seeing the advantage! Lets just say he got f***ed out of it for blowing the free! His reply of 'Look I blew it up straight away and even if i didnt ye'd stil be complaining!' said it all really that something needs to be done to allow this common sense advantage rule to become clearly defined...allow a ref play advantage and bring it back within 5-10 seconds if an advanatage has not occured to the victims team. Common sense: REMOVE the words a resulting free can not be awarded if advantage is played!

That ref did the right thing - if he can't see it he can't give it.

The advantage rule is very clearly defined - you give the free or you let play go on, for the life of me I don't know what's unclear about that.

The real problem i.m.o. is that referees, once they give advantage, don't pull up for subsequent fouls (like the example given for the gooch - it sounds to me like he was fouled again after the advantage was given).

I've watcehd the replay (at 11.45) of the Canning incident a few times and for the life of me it appears that the ref blew the whistle a few steps after he got free of the defender. If this is the case, then this is the wrong decision as he has already played the advantage in not giving the free. To give the ref the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure if he could see the fact that Cannning got free of the defender - it appears that Egan was almost directly between the ref and Canning - in this case he would have been right to give the free.