Question Number: 33409

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/2/2019

RE: rec Under 16

gary of nashua, nh usa asks...

Had an instance in a game the other day in which I played advantage on a handball about 30 yards from attackers goal, only for about a second later for the attacker to handle themselves. I awarded the kick to the defended team. Thoughts...

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Gary
The key question was whether the advantage was realised or not?
The fact that the attacker had to handle the ball within a second or so suggests that maybe it was not a clear advantage in the first place.
Also as we know deliberate handling is never always black and white. I suspect it could have looked like the second handling was called whereas the first one was not. That can be based on how the advantage decision was conveyed and perhaps the fact that the second one was called almost immediately.
Perhaps the best decision would have been to go back to the first DHB due to the potential that it was not realised.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Gary,
The law says that the referee ''penalises the (original) offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds'' - so if something occurs only a second later such that the advantage is not realised as you had anticipated, you are entitled to call it back. Although it's difficult to be sure without seeing the actual incident, the fact that so little time has elapsed suggests to me that perhaps you should have considered going back to the original offence.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Gary,
one of the trick question in the exam was to do with an obvious advantage situation being considered but our now up & running stumbling attacker kicks it to a wide open offside player. Many were on about the choice was his, the advantage was there but he wasted it. Thus INDFK out .

I will point out the correct call was to award the advantage bring it back DFK .

In point of fact this was a foul well worthy of a free kick where advantage is a consideration but it was NOT a guarantee and the subsequent loss of possession is not really a fair outcome . My colleagues are correct on the timeline for a true advantage to be realized there should be nothing remaining of that foul that in any way compromises the advantage. Of course to see the event might change my mind but it appears the potential advantage may not have been fully realized.
Cheers