Advantage rule?

conor.hogan.2

What exactly is the rule for advantage in Hurling and Football?

If a player is fouled and then scores a goal after the whistle is blown surely they goal should be given? Does the ref have to raise his hand to deliberately give advantage?

mathepac

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

What exactly is the rule for advantage in Hurling and Football? ...

There is no 'advantage rule' in GAA and there never has been. Once the whistle is blown, play stops. Any 'score' after the whistle sounds is disallowed.

Hammer Archer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

What exactly is the rule for advantage in Hurling and Football?

If a player is fouled and then scores a goal after the whistle is blown surely they goal should be given? Does the ref have to raise his hand to deliberately give advantage?

As far as I know, yes, the ref does have to raise his hand to indicate he's given advantage. If the whistle is blown, the play is (at least it should be) stopped.
Personally I think the rule the way it is is a farce. If advantage doesn't accrue, the ref cannot bring the ball back and give the free which is ridiculous. I've seen several times over the past two seasons where a player has gotten fouled in a scoreable position, only for the referee to play advantage and the player lose the ball. Where's the advantage in that?
I think unless referees are allowed call play back should no advantage be gained, or unless there will obviously be a huge advantage in letting play carry on (ie if there's a breakaway or a player is clean through on goal) the referee should give the free.

Hammer Archer

mathepac wrote: »

There is no 'advantage rule' in GAA and there never has been. Once the whistle is blown, play stops. Any 'score' after the whistle sounds is disallowed.

Not entirely true. An advantage rule of sorts was brought in last year (I think) but it's not like in soccer or rugby where the referee can pull play back if no advantage is gained. Basically the referee raises his arm to show there was a foul but advantage was given.

conor.hogan.2

mathepac wrote: »

There is no 'advantage rule' in GAA and there never has been. Once the whistle is blown, play stops. Any 'score' after the whistle sounds is disallowed.

That is what I thought but Google it there and there is an advantage rule of some variety.

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Not entirely true. An advantage rule of sorts was brought in last year (I think) but it's not like in soccer or rugby where the referee can pull play back if no advantage is gained. Basically the referee raises his arm to show there was a foul but advantage was given.

Ok so how come the referee disallowed the Kilkenny goal today if the advantage was played? He did not have to call it back he should have just allowed the goal to stand and not give a penalty?

dastardly00

OP are you referring to Eoin Larkin's disallowed goal during the KK vs Clare match?

conor.hogan.2

dastardly00 wrote: »

OP are you referring to Eoin Larkin's disallowed goal during the KK vs Clare match?

Yep that is what brought it up in my head.

Hammer Archer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Ok so how come the referee disallowed the Kilkenny goal today if the advantage was played?

Didn't see it. What exactly happened?
There are some refs on here who will probably know much more than me (think Blackbelt and rebel girl are refs).

conor.hogan.2

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Didn't see it. What exactly happened?
There are some refs on here who will probably know much more than me (think Blackbelt and rebel girl are refs).

He was fouled but the ball was hit over the line pretty much straight away but after the whistle was blown and the ref booked the Clare player and gave a penalty and disallowed the goal.

Hammer Archer

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

He was fouled but the ball was hit over the line pretty much straight away but after the whistle was blown and the ref booked the Clare player and gave a penalty and disallowed the goal.

Not entirely sure on the rule when it comes to a penalty.

rebel girl 15

Pretty much straight away after the whistle doesn't count - if the whistle is blown and a score taken, then it has to be a free or penalty. Referee cannot award a score if they have blown even milliseconds before a score.

If the referee feels that the player has an advantage, they leave play continue, if not, they pull the foul. They should raise their arm to show that there was an advantage played.

edit: Question, did one of the umpires stand in the middle of the goals and cross the flags? If he did, then the goal was technically awarded but disallowed because of the referee blowing the whistle - if not, the goal was never given in the first place, so technically could not be disallowed

rebel girl 15

I've looked up the exact terminology

Hurling

4.34 When a team commits a Technical Foul, the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be to 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.

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

Football

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

5.35 When a team commits an aggressive foul, the referee may allow play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the offended 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 the relevant penalty.

Now, to be honest, the end of the technical advantage and aggressive foul advantage should be swapped - as more often than not, its an aggressive foul that it is pulled for rather than a technical foul, so the disciplinary action should be after an aggressive foul.

Carawaystick

Advantage in soccer's the same, there's no calling back play.

So a ``good'' ref will just be slow to blow for a foul

I'd think it's better to bring in a rule signalling advantage and then allowing the same amount of time as you can hold the ball in your hands to score/do something positive before calling play back.

buck65

Larkin's "goal" was good, actually the Clare no. 5 Bugler was booked when it was the goalie that took Larkin's legs from under him. The wing back only had his hand on the back.
Of course Kilkenny's actual goal should not have been given, Larkin fouled the ball by turning 3 times and the goalscorer was in the square. Poor officiating all round.

premierstone

The ref couldnt allow the goasl yesterday as he had already blown he's whisle, in that instance the defenders could claim and logically that they stoped playin as they heard the whisle.

Also Larkin quitre clearly threw the ball infront of himself before hitting it in, the penaly was the correct decision, the actual goal that KK scored shoul dhave been a free out aswell for overcarrying.

mathepac

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

I've looked up the exact terminology
....
Now, to be honest, the end of the technical advantage and aggressive foul advantage should be swapped - as more often than not, its an aggressive foul that it is pulled for rather than a technical foul, so the disciplinary action should be after an aggressive foul.

Thanks for that, glad to learn. Apologies for my erroneous post earlier

Martin567

premierstone wrote: »

The ref couldnt allow the goasl yesterday as he had already blown he's whisle, in that instance the defenders could claim and logically that they stoped playin as they heard the whisle.

Also Larkin quitre clearly threw the ball infront of himself before hitting it in, the penaly was the correct decision, the actual goal that KK scored shoul dhave been a free out aswell for overcarrying.

I think most people's view is that the ref should not have blown his whistle so quickly. All he had to do was wait a second or two to see what happened as the incident was still ongoing. From what I saw, Larkin simply dropped the ball in front of himself before knocking it in - nothing wrong with that.

premierstone

Martin567 wrote: »

I think most people's view is that the ref should not have blown his whistle so quickly. All he had to do was wait a second or two to see what happened as the incident was still ongoing. From what I saw, Larkin simply dropped the ball in front of himself before knocking it in - nothing wrong with that.

Its a foul to intentionally drop the ball to gain and advantage, imo it was deliberate but I agree its open to interpreation it could have been an accident.

jack presley

In any sport, once the whistle is blown you can't really have play continuing. That wouldn't be fair to defenders (evenif they're the guilty parties)

Hammer Archer

premierstone wrote: »

Its a foul to intentionally drop the ball to gain and advantage, imo it was deliberate but I agree its open to interpreation it could have been an accident.

True. One thing that some people don't seem to realise is that just because a player is being fouled, doesn't give them a right to foul the ball in any way.
One example of this (please don't jump down my throat, it's just the most high profile example I could think of) was the Kildare - Down game in 2010. Along with Coulter's goal being ridiculously illegal, Kildare's goal was scored after Callaghan (I think) took a massive amount of steps. Some people came on and said that as he was being fouled (which he was, outside the box) the referee was right to allow advantage (which he wasn't).

Kkid

Looked at it there again and Larkin dropped the ball was about to hit the ball and got a push on the back and then let the ball bounce before tapping it in. It should have been a goal but Kelly blew a bit too quickly (these things happen).... Matt ruth was clearly outside the square but Larkin did take a lot of steps. I thought he let a lot of overcarrying go on both sides, one example was Bugler taking 9 steps to get clear of TJ Reid and throwing up the ball and going to tap it on his hurl missing the hurl and catching it with his other hand and getting a free for being dragged back!

dastardly00

The ref seems to blow the whistle just after Larkin hits the sliotar / just before the sliotar crosses the line.

I would like to think that the ref realised that Larkin fouled the ball (by throwing it out in front of him) while he was being fouled by the Clare defender, and then awarded the penalty.
So I think he made the right decision.

A player throwing the ball out if front of them in order to gain an advantage is one of the most common occurences these days and rarely gets called. Although it is very difficult to officiate.

Kkid

So dastardly, does that mean if you throw the ball up to hit it and don't hot it until it bounces its a free??

dastardly00

Kkid wrote: »

So dastardly, does that mean if you throw the ball up to hit it and don't hot it until it bounces its a free??

:rolleyes:

Kkid

Good comeback!

buck65

no it's not a free, you could have been hooked or miss hit the ball, the rule is more about throwing the ball on the ground if you get bottled up.
Unless it's blatantly obvious its never whistled.

premierstone

Kkid wrote: »

So dastardly, does that mean if you throw the ball up to hit it and don't hot it until it bounces its a free??

No of course not, it is , similar to the rule with the hurl, where you throw the ball intentionally to gain and advantage that the foul arises, in this case Larkin most certainly didnt throw the ball ''up'', Ref got it spot on IMO, first foul was by the Clare defender so a penalty was the correct call.

Martin567

premierstone wrote: »

No of course not, it is , similar to the rule with the hurl, where you throw the ball intentionally to gain and advantage that the foul arises, in this case Larkin most certainly didnt throw the ball ''up'', Ref got it spot on IMO, first foul was by the Clare defender so a penalty was the correct call.

Which rule says anything about "up"? Surely a player is entitled to drop the ball ball at their own feet to hit on the half volley if bottled up and unable to make any other stroke? I agree if he threw the ball that it would be a foul. If he simply drops or hand-passes the ball in front of himself, I don't see where the foul arises. Perhaps I'm wrong but I'd like something more definitive than anything you've provided so far.

Squareball2010

Martin567 wrote: »

Which rule says anything about "up"? Surely a player is entitled to drop the ball ball at their own feet to hit on the half volley if bottled up and unable to make any other stroke? I agree if he threw the ball that it would be a foul. If he simply drops or hand-passes the ball in front of himself, I don't see where the foul arises. Perhaps I'm wrong but I'd like something more definitive than anything you've provided so far.

Surely a player is entitled to do it is right....why penalise creativeness and genius like what we saw in the All Ireland Q/F in 2005 when Brian Corcoran dropped the sliothar and hit it on the half volley knowing he'd be blocked by the fullback otherwise. Moment of pure brilliance and most importantly the goal stood, rightly so!

It's the 4th goal in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLPrepu78NQ