I'm a third year referee and struggle with plays like this. Sometimes I feel like pulling the play back and marking the foul gives the attacker two bites at the apple.
Assume in the clip the attacker gets another dribble after the grab and there's no 2nd contact (in my example, he gets a clean shot off and misses). Now what? For me that's advantage the attacker squanders so no foul on the play. Still a YC for SPA.
The side effect of my logic is it encourages the player to fall down instead of playing through contact.
I had a similar situation in a U14 game this weekend (I was AR). Attacker is ahead of the defender & heading to goal about 30 yards out. He gets fouled from behind, keeps going, fouled again, keeps going, gets clear and rips a shot from inside the 18. The center didn't award a foul under the "attacker got a clean shot away after the contact" premise. I agreed ... if the center had marked the foul as the shot goes into the net that would have been bad. Clearly if it had gone in that's advantage and a good goal.
Thoughts?
my thought is, you can wait for a second or two, and see. if it doesn't go too long, and if the advantage doesn't materialize, pull it back to the foul and do what needs to be done. if the advantage does materialize but the attacker doesn't score, so be it. but be very careful in the dogso case. it's my feeling that in an instance like the video above, it's better to call the foul fairly quickly and dole out the appropriate punishment, rather than wait too long "trying" to give the attacker an advantage that doesn't materialize. that defender should be sent off, and you don't want to let him off the hook unless it's a very clear and immediate advantage.I'm a third year referee and struggle with plays like this. Sometimes I feel like pulling the play back and marking the foul gives the attacker two bites at the apple.
Assume in the clip the attacker gets another dribble after the grab and there's no 2nd contact (in my example, he gets a clean shot off and misses). Now what? For me that's advantage the attacker squanders so no foul on the play. Still a YC for SPA.
The side effect of my logic is it encourages the player to fall down instead of playing through contact.
I had a similar situation in a U14 game this weekend (I was AR). Attacker is ahead of the defender & heading to goal about 30 yards out. He gets fouled from behind, keeps going, fouled again, keeps going, gets clear and rips a shot from inside the 18. The center didn't award a foul under the "attacker got a clean shot away after the contact" premise. I agreed ... if the center had marked the foul as the shot goes into the net that would have been bad. Clearly if it had gone in that's advantage and a good goal.
Thoughts?
I saw that happen two separate times in a game I saw earlier this month - calling a foul + letting the fouled player continue on the run. In one case he brought the ball back to the spot of the foul after letting play continue on for maybe 5 seconds with a shot deflected out of bounds. It was the game before ours so I didn't think much of it - but wondering if its a new interpretation of the advantage rule - allow play to continue on for some period of time, and then also give the team a free-kick if it doesn't work out for the attacker?!?
I saw that happen two separate times in a game I saw earlier this month - calling a foul + letting the fouled player continue on the run. In one case he brought the ball back to the spot of the foul after letting play continue on for maybe 5 seconds with a shot deflected out of bounds. It was the game before ours so I didn't think much of it - but wondering if its a new interpretation of the advantage rule - allow play to continue on for some period of time, and then also give the team a free-kick if it doesn't work out for the attacker?!?
Gotta look super close. Box is a faint yellowish red, not the white (flag football). Can’t really see it in the video very well.Even when viewing the clip at full speed one can see that the foul was not outside the penalty area.
Nah. You are trying to figure out how the game is called and why. I find it helpful. Same goes for the other posts, agree with me or not.Gotta look super close. Box is a faint yellowish red, not the white (flag football). Can’t really see it in the video very well.
I have more but they either overly involve my kid or feels like ref shaming which I’m not trying to do with these clips. Looking at the ”cmon ref” forum posts, I’m a bit leery that its what it looks like.
Keep sharing. It's great to get clips to look at and discuss/debate. Keeps us all engaged. Now that you've explained yourself, I don't think anyone on here thinks your ref shaming. We all learn from seeing real-life examples.Gotta look super close. Box is a faint yellowish red, not the white (flag football). Can’t really see it in the video very well.
I have more but they either overly involve my kid or feels like ref shaming which I’m not trying to do with these clips. Looking at the ”cmon ref” forum posts, I’m a bit leery that its what it looks like.