Gaelic Football - Rules & Regulations discussion/clarification

[Hardy]

It's interesting that the wording is such that the referee may end the advantage period inside the five seconds if an advantage has not occurred, but may not end it within the five seconds if an advantage has occurred.

So the referee must wait for five seconds to deem that an advantage has accrued but can deem that an advantage has not accrued in, say, 2 seconds.

That seems to mean that he can't consider it an advantage if, for instance, the team of the fouled player gets possession from the foul and end the advantage period. He must wait five seconds. In theory, the attacking team could have two shots back off the post and a great save from the keeper in that time and still get a free. 

It also means that if there's a subsequent foul within the five seconds, he can't start a new advantage, but must stop  for the original foul.

Hardy, I would agree with all you have said except the very last part. If there is a subsequent foul in a better position the ref shouldn't stop play for the original foul.  A free from the position of the latter foul is the advantage accrued.

That makes sense.

[blewuporstuffed]

Advantage Rule:
When a foul is committed the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the offended team. He shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright. If he deems no advantage to have occurred, he may subsequently award a free for that foul from where it occurred*. The referee shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the initial foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. He shall apply any relevant disciplinary action.”

It's at the referee's discretion as to what he considers an advantage to be.

For me, if a foul is committed which is in a scoreable position then if the attacking team doesn't score within the 5 seconds (regardless of whether they have had a shot at goal or not) then the play should be called back for the free.
IMO, a scoreable free is more advantageous than a shot being saved by the goalkeeper. So therefore I would say the referee was correct in the example given by blewuporstuffed.

Yes but is an attacker being through one on one with the keeper not more advantageous than a free kick?Therefore the advantage has occurred?if he then chooses to take his point or go for goal (no matter what the out come) then that is up to the attacker.
As I said, we came out the right side of this one, but it just didnt seem right to me.

[westbound]

Advantage Rule:
When a foul is committed the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the offended team. He shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright. If he deems no advantage to have occurred, he may subsequently award a free for that foul from where it occurred*. The referee shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the initial foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. He shall apply any relevant disciplinary action.”

It's at the referee's discretion as to what he considers an advantage to be.

For me, if a foul is committed which is in a scoreable position then if the attacking team doesn't score within the 5 seconds (regardless of whether they have had a shot at goal or not) then the play should be called back for the free.
IMO, a scoreable free is more advantageous than a shot being saved by the goalkeeper. So therefore I would say the referee was correct in the example given by blewuporstuffed.

Yes but is an attacker being through one on one with the keeper not more advantageous than a free kick?Therefore the advantage has occurred?if he then chooses to take his point or go for goal (no matter what the out come) then that is up to the attacker.
As I said, we came out the right side of this one, but it just didnt seem right to me.

That's a valid argument blewuporstuffed. And the fact that it comes down to the referee's discretion always leads to inconsistencies.
However, I think that the attacker being through one on one is only an advantage if he's able to score it!!!! 
The 5 second part of the rule means that the referee has time to see if a REAL advantage has accrued. I should point out that I like this - it's similar to rugby, but with a more certain time limit!

The problem with the old advantage rule was that the decision had to be made pretty much instantaneously. So in your example above you'd have got the free in and most supporters (obviously not you!) would have blinded the ref for not giving an advantage and said he'd have scored a goal if the ref didn't blow the whistle! (or alternatively blinded him not not giving the free in!)

[Hardy]

Just as an aside, it's amusing that it seems the majority of spectators don't have a clue about the advantage rule, as evidenced by the howling and booing every time an advantage fails to accrue and the ref calls play back for the free. People either didn't see the the original foul or have assumed he got away with and haven't noticed the referee's raised hand or, if they have, presume he's waving to his mates. Then when he blows apparently for no reason, they go crazy.   

What's not amusing, but annoying, is when paid commentators and overpaid "pundits" react the same way.

That's not to mention the bemusement when the umpires make the "Hawkeye" signal and the same clowns interpret it as the wide signal and then say Hawkeye overruled the umpire, whereupon the producer orders a close-up of the properly performing umpire in order to shame him before the nation.

[magpie seanie]

To be fair there are a few refs I know of here in Sligo that ruin around with an arm up in the air all the time, long bofre any advantage rule was thought of!!!

[AZOffaly]

Fascists!!!

[PAULD123]

Advantage Rule:
When a foul is committed the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the offended team. He shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright. If he deems no advantage to have occurred, he may subsequently award a free for that foul from where it occurred*. The referee shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the initial foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. He shall apply any relevant disciplinary action.”

It's at the referee's discretion as to what he considers an advantage to be.

For me, if a foul is committed which is in a scoreable position then if the attacking team doesn't score within the 5 seconds (regardless of whether they have had a shot at goal or not) then the play should be called back for the free.
IMO, a scoreable free is more advantageous than a shot being saved by the goalkeeper. So therefore I would say the referee was correct in the example given by blewuporstuffed.

Yes but is an attacker being through one on one with the keeper not more advantageous than a free kick?Therefore the advantage has occurred?if he then chooses to take his point or go for goal (no matter what the out come) then that is up to the attacker.
As I said, we came out the right side of this one, but it just didnt seem right to me.

I disagree. Advantage is if you are in a better position because of continuing to play than you would have been if you had stopped for the original free.

Say a team gets a free inside their own 21, the ball is played quickly forward and the attacker gets a shot away within 5 seconds but misses. The free should not be called back, because even though he missed, the ball is now at the other end of the pitch which is about all you could really have hoped for from a deep defensive free.

But say instead an attacker is fouled on the 13m line dead centre. He slips the ball away as he is going down and his team mate blasts a shot wide. Clearly it is very much less advantageous to have a shot wide than a near certain 13m free scored. In this instance I would argue that anything less than a point scored during advantage play is not advantageous over the benefit of a simple free. The play should be called back for the free.

What is an advantage anyway? I say - Did the offended team gain a better position as a result of the advantage than they would have got from the free? And if you are fouled 13m out then yes, I do think the advantage rule effectively means that you are being allowed two shots at the sticks. Having a one-on-one with the keeper is in itself not an advantage, that's just what happened during advantage. Only after the advantage is at an end can a ref make a decision if the team would have been better off with the free and if it is the difference between one point scored and three points missed then it is definitely one point scored puts you in a better position!

[westbound]

Advantage Rule:
When a foul is committed the referee may allow the play to continue if he considers it to be to the advantage of the offended team. He shall signal that advantage by raising an arm upright. If he deems no advantage to have occurred, he may subsequently award a free for that foul from where it occurred*. The referee shall allow the advantage to run by maintaining his arm in the upright position for up to five seconds after the initial foul or for less time if it becomes clear that no advantage has accrued. He shall apply any relevant disciplinary action.”

It's at the referee's discretion as to what he considers an advantage to be.

For me, if a foul is committed which is in a scoreable position then if the attacking team doesn't score within the 5 seconds (regardless of whether they have had a shot at goal or not) then the play should be called back for the free.
IMO, a scoreable free is more advantageous than a shot being saved by the goalkeeper. So therefore I would say the referee was correct in the example given by blewuporstuffed.

Yes but is an attacker being through one on one with the keeper not more advantageous than a free kick?Therefore the advantage has occurred?if he then chooses to take his point or go for goal (no matter what the out come) then that is up to the attacker.
As I said, we came out the right side of this one, but it just didnt seem right to me.

I disagree. Advantage is if you are in a better position because of continuing to play than you would have been if you had stopped for the original free.

Say a team gets a free inside their own 21, the ball is played quickly forward and the attacker gets a shot away within 5 seconds but misses. The free should not be called back, because even though he missed, the ball is now at the other end of the pitch which is about all you could really have hoped for from a deep defensive free.

But say instead an attacker is fouled on the 13m line dead centre. He slips the ball away as he is going down and his team mate blasts a shot wide. Clearly it is very much less advantageous to have a shot wide than a near certain 13m free scored. In this instance I would argue that anything less than a point scored during advantage play is not advantageous over the benefit of a simple free. The play should be called back for the free.

What is an advantage anyway? I say - Did the offended team gain a better position as a result of the advantage than they would have got from the free? And if you are fouled 13m out then yes, I do think the advantage rule effectively means that you are being allowed two shots at the sticks. Having a one-on-one with the keeper is in itself not an advantage, that's just what happened during advantage. Only after the advantage is at an end can a ref make a decision if the team would have been better off with the free and if it is the difference between one point scored and three points missed then it is definitely one point scored puts you in a better position!

This is exactly what I was trying to say! - You just explained it better! 

[haranguerer]

There would need to be certainty of consistency between refs, but it had occurred to me that in an attackng position where a ref has signalled advantage, you should shoot for goal, no matter the angle, distance, etc, as the point would be secure from the free if you miss anyway. Refs dont like anyone being too smart though, so no doubt you'd lose your free no matter the precedents.

In all likelihood the ref is going to be behind you, so seeing an advantage signal could be difficult unless the refs now shout out that they're playing an advantage ala the rugby lads.

In all likelihood if you see a certain foul and are first onto the ball without hearing a whistle, it would be safe to assume there is advantage being played

[haranguerer]

Has a referee ever ordered a penalty to be retaken for a goalkeeper advancing off his line?

Yes

[macdanger2]

Are players meant to be outside the semicircle on the 21 when a kickout is being taken?

[macdanger2]

Are players meant to be outside the semicircle on the 21 when a kickout is being taken?

Anyone??

[Hardy]

No, Mac. The semi circle doesn't come into it. They must be outside the 20m line and more than 13m from the ball.

[macdanger2]

Cheers hardy

Always thought that was the purpose of that semicircle. If not, then is there a reason for it?

[imtommygunn]

Defenders have to be outside it for kickouts i think??

Was wondering the same myself with donaghy and the goal.