Question Number: 33053

High School 2/8/2019

RE: All High School

Derek of Cary, IL USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 33040

I would like further clarification. The idea that I got from the answers was that if advantage is called in the attacking 3rd, it should lead to a goal or an obvious squander by the team with advantage. Otherwise play should stop for the foul as there was no advantage. Is this acceptable?

I feel there is more to this than what I am understanding...

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Derek
Once the referee allows advantage he has to consider whether advantage has been realised or not.
If in the opinion of the referee advantage has not been realised then play is brought back to the original foul.
Once however advantage has been realised with a clear shot at goal then in my opinion the advantage has been realised so play is not brought back.
The referee has to wait until the next stoppage to take disciplinary action for any foul once advantage has been played on that foul and realised with play continuing.
Now not every situation is black and white. A hurried weak shot, off balance, after a foul may not be an advantage if saved easily so play could be brought back to the foul whereas a player is fouled, keeps going, steadies himself and takes a shot in the same way that he would have done without the foul then advantage has been realised with the outcome having to be accepted.
A few seasons ago I had a situation where a player was fouled outside the penalty area, he kept going so I played advantage and he went around the goalkeeper to then, off his weaker foot, shot wide into the side netting. I awarded a goal kick as in my opinion advantage was fully realised. I could have chosen to caution the defender for the foul before the goal kick yet in my opinion it was not reckless and it did not end up as a tactical foul so I let it slide. It probably would have raised questions as to if it were a caution why should play not be brought back?
Interestingly there was no complaint from the attacking side who saw the incident as a miss by the attacker who was holding his head in disbelief at his poor play.
Have a look at this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=2m11s&v=vra8cE9_iRY
Say the contact by the Green defender was a foul on the Red attacker with the referee playing advantage as he breaks away and rounds the goalkeeper.
Without doubt advantage was fully realised so the referee would not go back to the foul by the defender which then would have to be a red card in that situation for denying a goal scoring opportunity.
Even if there was a foul by the defender with advantage played I could not see it as a yellow card from the way play transpired with advantage fully realised. If it was reckless then a card would be appropriate.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Derek,
Whether the foul is in the attacking third or not, the basic principle remains the same. According to NFHS Rules, the referee should allow an observed foul to ''go unpenalized because penalizing the offending team would give an advantage to the offending team. If the referee applies the advantage, which was anticipated but does not develop at that time, the referee shall penalize the original offense;'' It is up to the referee to decide whether the advantage has developed or not and to act accordingly.

In case it helps, the NFHS play rulings describe a situation where the player, despite being fouled and while advantage is being applied, ''keeps the ball and gets off a shot that sails wide of the goal.'' The ruling says that in this scenario, ''The advantage was gained even though the shot missed.'' So in this example, the referee would not go back and penalise the original offense. As ref McHugh says, if the offence merited a caution it should still be given at the next stoppage in play.