The Advantage Rule

[mulletsaint]

I was wondering if there are any qualified refs on here that could clear something up for me?

 

On Friday my son's school football team, Forest Hill Boys from SE London, played in the u12 English School's FA National Cup Final at Stamford Bridge. It was a great game between two good footballing sides. Despite having the better chances we were only 2-1 up with four minutes to go when the following happened.

 

On of the opposition's players was tripped just outside the right hand corner of the penalty area. I can't remember exactly what happened next but the player either stayed on his feet or the ball broke to another player from the same side, so the ref waved advantage. However as the player entered the area he was tripped again. Instead of signalling penalty the ref pulled the game back and gave the first infringement. Cue huge sigh of relief from our supporters and cries of outrage from the others. Is this the correct action to be taken in this situation or should the more advantageous infringement be awarded.

 

Personally I thought that the law was to give the first infringement but I realised I didn't know for certain. FIFA's Laws of the Game document doesn't seem to cover it.

[FloridaMarlin]

It's one of those where the referee could argue either way, either for the spirit of the law, or the letter.

 

He could say that the original free-kick was not given as he waited for an advantage and once that advantage ended - by the second foul - the advantage ceased, so he had to pull it back and award the original free-kick. That would be following the letter of the law.

 

But the key word here, I think, is 'advantage'. By not awarding the original free-kick he thought an advantage might accrue and let play continue. That advantage was ended by a second foul inside the penalty area. By allowing the advantage he had effectively opens up a new passage of play, which itself is ended by a foul.

 

The whole idea of applying the advantage is the that team sinned against should not suffer a disadvantage (if that doesn't sound like a strange double negative) and should not be penalised by the award of a free-kick.

 

In this instance, if he wanted to apply the advantage, he should have awarded the penalty as the team have been disadvantaged.

[Whitey Grandad]

I would have awarded a penalty, that being a greater advantage. I would only have brought play back if no advantage had accrued, and you really only have a couple of seconds leeway. Once advantage has been signalled I would have though it too late to go back to the original offence.

 

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/index.html see page 68

[Nexstar]

I would say that if he signaled play on and was immediately tripped in the box, then there is no advantage and play should be brought back. If the player collected the ball and a couple of seconds later he was tripped, I would say the advantage had been played out and therefore a penalty should be awarded.

 

Tough one and like others have said, could go either way.

[Whitey Grandad]

I would say that if he signaled play on and was immediately tripped in the box, then there is no advantage and play should be brought back. If the player collected the ball and a couple of seconds later he was tripped, I would say the advantage had been played out and therefore a penalty should be awarded.

 

Tough one and like others have said, could go either way.

 

Yes, not easy, but I would say that a penalty was a greater advantage than a free kick.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I would say that if he signaled play on and was immediately tripped in the box, then there is no advantage and play should be brought back. If the player collected the ball and a couple of seconds later he was tripped, I would say the advantage had been played out and therefore a penalty should be awarded.

 

Tough one and like others have said, could go either way.

 

Think you've contradicted yourself here. Surely getting fouled for a potential penalty IS an advantage? That is, a penalty kick is more advantageous than a free kick on the edge of the box.

 

Perhaps the ref didn't think the second incident was a foul and so made the correct interpretation of the advantage rule?

[swannymere]

Would it be stupid of me to suggest that its an U-12's match and that they should be more concerned with enjoying the match, just out of curiosity did any of the players complain or was it just the parents?

[Whitey Grandad]

Think you've contradicted yourself here. Surely getting fouled for a potential penalty IS an advantage? That is, a penalty kick is more advantageous than a free kick on the edge of the box.

 

Perhaps the ref didn't think the second incident was a foul and so made the correct interpretation of the advantage rule?

Good point. Until the whistle goes the ball is still in play so you can't blow for a new foul and then take it back to the previous one. Did the whistle blow when the player was allegedly tripped in the box?

 

I've refereed under 12 matches at Staplewood where all the regional academies were involved. The kids were wonderful, no nastiness or unpleasant attitudes. The parents however were absolutely desperate for their little Jonnies to do well.

[trousers]

Would it be stupid of me to suggest that its an U-12's match and that they should be more concerned with enjoying the match, just out of curiosity did any of the players complain or was it just the parents?

 

More importantly....did they score from the free kick...?! :-)

[knellster]

At the risk of getting pedantic there is no advantage rule as such (which may explain why it couldn't be found on the FIFA website). There is however a duty of the referee not to penalise a player for an infringement if by doing so that player's team would benefit. If the events unfolded as described in the op then I believe the referee was wrong since awarding the free kick clearly did benefit the offending player.

[Whitey Grandad]

At the risk of getting pedantic there is no advantage rule as such (which may explain why it couldn't be found on the FIFA website). There is however a duty of the referee not to penalise a player for an infringement if by doing so that player's team would benefit. If the events unfolded as described in the op then I believe the referee was wrong since awarding the free kick clearly did benefit the offending player.

It is there in the Laws in several places.

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf

 

Law 5: Powers & Duties of the referee

Law 5: Page 68 especially

 

and others.