Advantage rule being applied correctly?

frostyjacks

Noticed in the Dublin game that a player was being fouled on the ball, and the ref played advantage. They had a shot on goal, but hit the post. The ref then brought it back and gave them a free for the earlier foul. Surely the shot on goal was the advantage, and it's too bad if they miss. Otherwise it's two advantages; a free shot on goal and then a free if they miss. In rugby the advantage would be over if they went all out for a try. Is this another headache for the refs?

Absoluvely

frostyjacks wrote: »

In rugby the advantage would be over if they went all out for a try.

Not so. In rugby you'll often see the referee going back for the penalty after the TMO rules negatively on a try-or-no-try decision when advantage was being played. So a team being close to scoring or attempting to score doesn't necessarily cause advantage to end.

celt262

There was a better one in Armagh.

The best referee in GAA played an advantage to Armagh and the ball ended up over the bar. He had his raised the whole time.

He then decided to scrap the advantage and gave a free in which was missed.

frostyjacks

Absoluvely wrote: »

Not so. In rugby you'll often see the referee going back for the penalty after the TMO rules negatively on a try-or-no-try decision when advantage was being played. So a team being close to scoring or attempting to score doesn't necessarily cause advantage to end.

But when does the ref stop the advantage? In rugby, they might do a grubber kick and you'll hear the ref shout 'advantage over', that doesn't seem to be happening in football. It was Andrews hitting the crossbar in the 14th minute I'm on about.

keeponhurling

Yes i noticed that too and I did think that it is either an advantage or it's not.
The commentator seemed to think it was a good decision, but I don't think we have the rugby style rule where if there is advantage it can still be called back later.

Didn't a similar incident occur at the end of Dublin-Cavan in the U21, nearly caused a riot.

What is the correct advantage rule ?

Hammer Archer

frostyjacks wrote: »

But when does the ref stop the advantage? In rugby, they might do a grubber kick and you'll hear the ref shout 'advantage over', that doesn't seem to be happening in football. It was Andrews hitting the crossbar in the 14th minute I'm on about.

In rugby, what you're thinking about is a knock on advantage which ends pretty quickly. For a penalty advantage in rugby, especially close to the posts, you'll often see teams have a "free shot" at goal as they know that it'll come back for the penalty if the drop goal is missed. Same with try scoring opportunities in that they'll take a greater risk in scoring a try as they know they've the penalty if it doesn't come off.

The referee was correct to call it back for the free. I think the exact rule is that advantage is played for 5 seconds. If the team with the advantage lose the ball or miss a scoring opportunity in those 5 seconds, the play can be brought back for a free.

While I think the rule is a good one, the way it's being applied by referees is infuriating at times. During the league I've seen advantage being applied 20-25m out and straight in front of the posts with a mass defence being applied when a free in would be much more beneficial to the fouled player/team.
I think players need to be more clever when advantage is being played. If they see the referees arm out and they would prefer the free, just stop playing and hand the ball to the referee and the free should be given.

nice_guy80

A few instances of no advantage being given in the Roscommon v Mayo game as well.
Young Murtagh was fouled, got away from his man and was away on goal.
Referee then brought the ball back.

frostyjacks

As I see it, if the defending team are fouling to stop a goal scoring chance, and the ref plays on to allow the attacking team to take the shot on goal, then that's the advantage. To bring it back for a free if they don't score the goal is a double advantage.

bruschi

frostyjacks wrote: »

As I see it, if the defending team are fouling to stop a goal scoring chance, and the ref plays on to allow the attacking team to take the shot on goal, then that's the advantage. To bring it back for a free if they don't score the goal is a double advantage.

no its not. how is it an advantage if the defending team are fouling him and despite him getting away he still misses. The fouling obviously has an impact, or else it wouldnt be a foul. Its called advantage, which means it should be to the benefit of the team being fouled. how is it of benefit to them that a clear foul was not given, and they still didnt have a score?

keeponhurling

At times the player can be through for a goal so they'd prefer the goal chance than to be brought back for a free that can only be pointed.
( also frees can be missed too)

It happened twice in the recent Clare-Tipp league semi, neither time the forward seemed too pleased about it

chubba1984

The advantage rule only exists in football, not hurling as it was brought in along with the black card...which is a bit frustrating as well

threeball

bruschi wrote: »

no its not. how is it an advantage if the defending team are fouling him and despite him getting away he still misses. The fouling obviously has an impact, or else it wouldnt be a foul. Its called advantage, which means it should be to the benefit of the team being fouled. how is it of benefit to them that a clear foul was not given, and they still didnt have a score?

That's all fine and good if the player being fouled took the shot but in this case the player being fouled was O Gara, he off loaded the ball and Andrews took the shot that hit the post and crossbar. To my mind once the player being fouled off loads the ball anything the receiving player does after that constitutes an advantage. You shouldn't get two bites of the cherry.

bruschi

threeball wrote: »

That's all fine and good if the player being fouled took the shot but in this case the player being fouled was O Gara, he off loaded the ball and Andrews took the shot that hit the post and crossbar. To my mind once the player being fouled off loads the ball anything the receiving player does after that constitutes an advantage. You shouldn't get two bites of the cherry.

the rule is there is 5 seconds. Regardless of what they do, if they dont have an advantage in 5 seconds they get the free.

Why shouldnt you get 2 bites of the cherry? If it was that way then players would just foul the whole time as if the advantage is played then they are safe to start again.

threeball

bruschi wrote: »

the rule is there is 5 seconds. Regardless of what they do, if they dont have an advantage in 5 seconds they get the free.

Why shouldnt you get 2 bites of the cherry? If it was that way then players would just foul the whole time as if the advantage is played then they are safe to start again.

So taking a shot on goal isn't an advantage. Its only an advantage if they're accurate enough to score? Also the man who was fouled managed to off load the ball if he hadn't maybe the fouling argument might stack up but not in this case.