What is a handy/soft free?

[Milltown Row2]

In some cases the player is being held back and the referee has 2 things he can do, blow for a free for the pulling of the player on the ball or give the player an extra few steps, using the advantage rule. Frustrates players/management but in the rules.

Am I reading this correctly? Under normal rules of play, 4 steps is the maximum number permitted before a solo/bounce. However, the rule doesn't apply if the referee allows play to continue under the advantage rule and the player can be allowed to continue and take extra steps. I never knew that

When i say he's allowed a few extra steps the referee usually gives the player on the ball an extra few steps if the player is being held, it's either that or blow a for a free for holding. Which would you prefer? play stopped for each pull or an advantage to keep the game flowing? Again hard to keep everyone happy

Yes ok, I have you now.

I'd prefer your idea of permitting the extra steps and I noticed in a later post there you mentioned that you make the player in posession aware that it is happening. It is definitely the common sense approach and should result in a more free flowing game.

However, I have 2 problems with it that are quite closely linked:

1) It's not in the rule book (I don't think - I stand to be corrected);
2) It's not consistently applied.

Obviously it's not consistently applied because it's not in the rule book. Perhaps it should be included as part of the advantage rule - when a ref raises his arm(s) to indicate advantage is being played, then the step count restarts at zero. However currently as that's not in the rule book I don't think it's an ideal way to approach it - it only takes a player a few seconds to overcarry so if the fouled player overcarries I think the foul should be given - 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that. I think the rules should be there to allow for a free flowing game, the ref should just faciliate that rather than interpret the rules in his own way - to me, that's what leads to the inconsistency issue.

But in the case I used he's being pulled so allowed to overcarry to break free of the pulling, so then if you would prefer that the referee blows for the initial free (pulling) then we will have a stop start non contact sport, in my mind it's not what I'd like to see. I hear the advantage rule may be tweaked next year to allow for a call back to the original foul after 6/7 seconds, not sure tbh. Think this would be better.

The referee will always interpret a foul or non foul as he 'sees' it, that's the thing, you from the advantage of the slow-mo  telly replay or even if you're at the game will see it at different angle/distance and call it your way, the referee can only see it his way and blow/not blow

[take_yer_points]

In some cases the player is being held back and the referee has 2 things he can do, blow for a free for the pulling of the player on the ball or give the player an extra few steps, using the advantage rule. Frustrates players/management but in the rules.

Am I reading this correctly? Under normal rules of play, 4 steps is the maximum number permitted before a solo/bounce. However, the rule doesn't apply if the referee allows play to continue under the advantage rule and the player can be allowed to continue and take extra steps. I never knew that

When i say he's allowed a few extra steps the referee usually gives the player on the ball an extra few steps if the player is being held, it's either that or blow a for a free for holding. Which would you prefer? play stopped for each pull or an advantage to keep the game flowing? Again hard to keep everyone happy

Yes ok, I have you now.

I'd prefer your idea of permitting the extra steps and I noticed in a later post there you mentioned that you make the player in posession aware that it is happening. It is definitely the common sense approach and should result in a more free flowing game.

However, I have 2 problems with it that are quite closely linked:

1) It's not in the rule book (I don't think - I stand to be corrected);
2) It's not consistently applied.

Obviously it's not consistently applied because it's not in the rule book. Perhaps it should be included as part of the advantage rule - when a ref raises his arm(s) to indicate advantage is being played, then the step count restarts at zero. However currently as that's not in the rule book I don't think it's an ideal way to approach it - it only takes a player a few seconds to overcarry so if the fouled player overcarries I think the foul should be given - 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that. I think the rules should be there to allow for a free flowing game, the ref should just faciliate that rather than interpret the rules in his own way - to me, that's what leads to the inconsistency issue.

But in the case I used he's being pulled so allowed to overcarry to break free of the pulling, so then if you would prefer that the referee blows for the initial free (pulling) then we will have a stop start non contact sport, in my mind it's not what I'd like to see. I hear the advantage rule may be tweaked next year to allow for a call back to the original foul after 6/7 seconds, not sure tbh. Think this would be better.

The referee will always interpret a foul or non foul as he 'sees' it, that's the thing, you from the advantage of the slow-mo  telly replay or even if you're at the game will see it at different angle/distance and call it your way, the referee can only see it his way and blow/not blow

Is the highlighted bit in the rules? If so, then that sounds perfect - an extra few steps to get away is a common sense point of view.

However, if it's not in the rules then that's where I can see inconsistency coming from - some refs will apply common sense and faciliate a free flowing game by allowing the player the extra few steps (whilst ignoring the rule book) and other refs will apply the rules to the letter of the law. I'd prefer the former, but I think all refs need to be consistent in that approach - the only way I can see that happening is to have it in the rule book.

[Milltown Row2]

In some cases the player is being held back and the referee has 2 things he can do, blow for a free for the pulling of the player on the ball or give the player an extra few steps, using the advantage rule. Frustrates players/management but in the rules.

Am I reading this correctly? Under normal rules of play, 4 steps is the maximum number permitted before a solo/bounce. However, the rule doesn't apply if the referee allows play to continue under the advantage rule and the player can be allowed to continue and take extra steps. I never knew that

When i say he's allowed a few extra steps the referee usually gives the player on the ball an extra few steps if the player is being held, it's either that or blow a for a free for holding. Which would you prefer? play stopped for each pull or an advantage to keep the game flowing? Again hard to keep everyone happy

Yes ok, I have you now.

I'd prefer your idea of permitting the extra steps and I noticed in a later post there you mentioned that you make the player in posession aware that it is happening. It is definitely the common sense approach and should result in a more free flowing game.

However, I have 2 problems with it that are quite closely linked:

1) It's not in the rule book (I don't think - I stand to be corrected);
2) It's not consistently applied.

Obviously it's not consistently applied because it's not in the rule book. Perhaps it should be included as part of the advantage rule - when a ref raises his arm(s) to indicate advantage is being played, then the step count restarts at zero. However currently as that's not in the rule book I don't think it's an ideal way to approach it - it only takes a player a few seconds to overcarry so if the fouled player overcarries I think the foul should be given - 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that. I think the rules should be there to allow for a free flowing game, the ref should just faciliate that rather than interpret the rules in his own way - to me, that's what leads to the inconsistency issue.

But in the case I used he's being pulled so allowed to overcarry to break free of the pulling, so then if you would prefer that the referee blows for the initial free (pulling) then we will have a stop start non contact sport, in my mind it's not what I'd like to see. I hear the advantage rule may be tweaked next year to allow for a call back to the original foul after 6/7 seconds, not sure tbh. Think this would be better.

The referee will always interpret a foul or non foul as he 'sees' it, that's the thing, you from the advantage of the slow-mo  telly replay or even if you're at the game will see it at different angle/distance and call it your way, the referee can only see it his way and blow/not blow

Is the highlighted bit in the rules? If so, then that sounds perfect - an extra few steps to get away is a common sense point of view.

However, if it's not in the rules then that's where I can see inconsistency coming from - some refs will apply common sense and faciliate a free flowing game by allowing the player the extra few steps (whilst ignoring the rule book) and other refs will apply the rules to the letter of the law. I'd prefer the former, but I think all refs need to be consistent in that approach - the only way I can see that happening is to have it in the rule book.

Agreed, if in the rule book then it puts it to bed, the 'slow whistle' isn't in the rule book but refs this year were told to apply it..... go figure

[PAULD123]

I do not agree with allowing a player to foul the ball just because he was being fouled. That is no good. There is no rule of "a few extra steps". To get an advantage when being fouled the player must release the ball. The advantageous movement of the ball (for a score or good pass) is the advantage, not the right to commit an entirely separate foul. The rules are the rules and should be played. No ref has a right to make up his own rules.

The problem is that if a player is being fouled and the ref gives him an advantage and he doesn't release the ball then the ref must ignore the first foul (as it was dealt with by non-retractable advantage) and instantly give a free against the fouled player for over-carrying. This would be correct and in keeping with the rules. but it is of course morally unjust.

However the new advantage rule (motion 19 at congress 2013) will account for it. If the lad is fouled and given advantage and then he runs on and fouls the ball the ref can stop him for over-carrying but retract to the original foul and award him the free kick. The new rule allows advantage with five seconds to see if there really was any advantage. Clearly fouling the ball two steps into your advantage is no advantage so the ball goes back to your original free. Again this is correct and in keeping with the rules and this time IS morally just.

From next year there will be no need to ignore the rules just to even up the spirit of things.