Question Number: 32723

Law 5 - The Referee 9/18/2018

RE: Rec Adult

Phil Prata of Burlington, Ontario Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32712

Thanks again for the quick and comprehensive answers.

Just to be clear - the ref was playing advantage i.e. he agreed that both offences occurred (the player touched the ball in an offside position but stopped when he saw the AR flag correctly raised).

In general, I think that is good refereeing, allowing the game to flow when it most likely could have done. There was nothing to stop the keeper picking the ball up and it's possible the fouled player could have continued.

In the first instance allowing the goal was very difficult to understand and it resulted in players being carded later (retribution because the opposition had celebrated the goal - adults are worse than kids on the field). The player was ONLY able to score because he had been offside - he gained the advantage from the no call.

In the second instance I think the ref was making a point i.e. don't take matters into your own hands (literally) and play to the whistle. As part of game management that can be useful - it sends a message that there is only one ref.

In 50+ years of playing I can't remember a ref shouting to the AR whilst players are still appealing and the ball is in play. It was very confusing as we are used to refs only speaking to players whilst the ball is in play. Normally I see refs use hand signals to the AR (usually a thumbs up) or when play has stopped then verbally communicating. I think that should be a strong guideline for refs. The AR needs acknowledgement not a conversation - the players need communication especially when an advantage is being played. Again it should imho be a rule that a ref clearly signal (by hand or verbally, preferably both) that advantage is being played (as happens in rugby for example, where the ref will also inform the players that the advantage is over). The NI v. Estonia video is an excellent example where the CR is clearly signalling by hand and verbally that the players should play on.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Phil
Thanks for the feedback.
On the N Ireland one the referee was 100% correct. The only issue I had was that the player who was berating the AR should have been cautioned for dissent. Schoolboy error to not play to the whistle and then have a go at the AR. Play to the whistle and then ask the question.
From what you describe here the referee could have sorted both situations easily. First one was to give the offside once there was a flag and the players all accepted that. On the foul if it was a foul then give it even if the player makes the decision not to *take* the advantage.
In both instances all the referee did was create hassle for himself that he and the game could have done without.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Phil,
there is a lot of good information in your line of questions.
I use the slogan your match your decision your reputation as a catch all for referees management styles & application of the LOTG.
I am in 100% agreement with my colleague Ref McHugh that given the explanations, there was no advantage, best to go back to the original foul , this would easily solve these two incidents in a less contested way.

I do very much believe a referee can teach the LOTG and fair play under certain situations but in setting a standard he must also realize he has created the bar by NOT fully appreciating WHY advantage exists. In both incidents he GAVE the team that did wrong two very very nice gifts for which they DID NOT deserve! A cheap GOAL & then an undeserved DFK for hacking down the opponent who simply wanted to take his free kick .
Cheers