• Home
• About
• Ask A Question

Question:
An attacker A1 shoots the ball toward the goal and the ball is handled by defender D in the penalty area preventing a goal. As a result of D’s handling, the ball is deflected to another attacker A2 with a possible shot on goal that is at least as good an opportunity to score as a penalty shot. Say, no real challenge by a defender on A2. The referee allows advantage, and A2 shoots toward the goal but misses. The ball goes directly over the goal line after A2’s shot.

Q1.What is the restart? Penalty kick or goal kick ?

Q2. Does D get a caution or a send off? Note that according to 12.39 of “Advice…”, if A2 had scored, then D would be cautioned and the restart would be a kick off.

Game level: To the extent that the answer is level dependent, I would appreciate a response reflecting that up thru adult pro.

USSF answer (March 1, 2010):
According to the Laws of the Game 2009/2010 (Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, p. 122), “If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.” In this case, the referee applied the advantage, which was realized, in that the attacking team was able to shoot, but failed to score a goal. Decision? See below.

You cited Advice 12.39, but apparently did not consider its second paragraph:

In cases where a goal or goalscoring opportunity has been denied by handling (DGH) or by a foul (DGF), but advantage has been applied, it is advisable to stop play as soon as possible once it becomes clear that the offended team has not been able to benefit from the advantage. This would be the case when, after roughly 3-5 seconds and at least one subsequent play, the team was not able to maintain a successful attack. In such cases, of course, the referee should return to the original foul and, additionally, show the red card for the denied opportunity associated with the foul. Because circumstances vary from game to game, there is no single mandatory decision that would be universally correct. The referee must use discretion in making the decision, based on experience, game circumstances, and common sense.

Question:
Defending team has been awarded a free kick outside the penalty area. The kicker pass back the ball to his goalkeeper. The keeper touches the ball with his hands but the ball, anyway, enters the goal.

How the referee should reiniciate the game?

1. Awarding an IFK against the goalkeeper because he used his hands after the ball was passed to him by a team mate?

2. Allowing the goal because the goalie touched the ball before it entered the goal? or

3. awarding a corner kick because a team can not kick a free kick into its own goal?

USSF answer (February 12, 2010):
For direct free kicks taken outside the penalty area, the Law requires only that a ball is kicked and moved to be in play and thus be eligible to enter the goal for a score (or a corner kick, if taken by the defending team). That happened. The ball was kicked by a player directly to his own goalkeeper. If the goalkeeper had let the ball go, it would have been a corner kick for the opponents. If the goalkeeper had stopped the ball with his hands, it would have been an indirect free kick for the opponents. Unfortunately for his side, the goalkeeper touched the ball but allowed it to continue on its way to goal. The referee should invoke the advantage clause and record the goal. Restart with a kick-off for the defending team.

Question:
Bolton v Arsenal 1.20.2010, around minute 34 if i recall…

Bolton foul at about 25 yards from their goal, and the ball ends up with Fabregas. Advantage is indicated by the referee: Fabregas dribbles twice and loses the ball.

The referee subsequently awards the free kick from the 25, as the advantage is not realized.

Or is it? After all, the offended team did maintain the possession and move the ball forward, however briefly.

It seems that once advantage is determined, the foul should be ignored unless it rose to the level of a caution (this one did not).

I am aware that in the penalty area, if an attacker is fouled but retains possession, often the penalty call is deferred until it is known if an effective shot on goal is achieved.

In this case, however, it seems that the defenders suffered double jeopardy.

Do you have advice as to how much opportunity, whether it be time of possession or effectiveness of attack, should be given the team/player who is fouled to realize advantage?

USSF answer (January 29, 2010):
The referee in this game followed established principles by invoking the advantage clause and then determining that the advantage had not accrued to Arsenal. His decision was correct. If, after observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so the player loses possession of the ball, the referee may still penalize the original offense.

It all pivots on the time lapse (which you didn’t define beyond “dribbles twice” and “however briefly”). It is important to note that even the International Board’s measure of time (“2-3 seconds”) is itself imprecise, so it all comes down to the opinion of the referee.

Some citations from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” (2009/2010) seem appropriate here (all from Advice 5.6):
One way to determine when to invoke the advantage is to apply the Four Ps: Possession, Potential, Personnel, and Proximity. Possession means active and credible control by the player who was fouled or a teammate. Potential means the likelihood of continuing an immediate and dangerous attack on the opponents’ goal. Potential is evaluated by judging the Personnel involved (the number and skills of the attackers relative to the number and skills of the defenders within 2-3 seconds of the offense) and Proximity (the distance to the opponents’ goal; the less the distance, the greater the potential).

In cases where the referee is applying the advantage clause, the advantage signal should be used to demonstrate that the game is being allowed to flow. Use of the advantage signal sends a visual message to the players/spectators that the referee saw the infraction, thereby mitigating potential negative feedback

Question:
Question for you on a discussion I am having with another referee on the advantage in the PA memo (4/11/08).

He claims that the memo implies that, in saying that the referee should wait 2-3 seconds to determine if advantage develops, should a DFK foul by the defense in its own PA occur, and in that 2-3 second interval the attacking gets a clean, uncontested shot on goal but misses the goal, the referee is entitled to go back to the original foul and award a penalty kick.

Using the video clip that accompanies the memo, the first blue player (Morsnik) is clearly the victim of a DFK foul after he passes the ball to Sealy. Sealy then cleanly plays the ball into a space where he gets a left-footed toe poke off on goal that hits the post.

The memo says the referee should have waited to see “what Sealy would have been able to do with the ball.” Which is the crux of the disagreement. I read that as saying that advantage should have been applied, and Sealy’s opportunity to score was of enough quality that a PK did not need to be called.

Furthermore, the paragraph before says:

“The referee properly recognized the advantage but then whistled for the foul against Morsink after he decided that a goal would not be scored by Sealy. In fact, Sealy made a shot on goal just as the whistle sounded and the ball failed to enter the net.”

The wording here, to me, implies that advantage was recognized but then the foul was given before letting the play develop. My colleague believes that USSF claims that the memo says that once it is realized that blue will not score (i.e., when the ball rebounds from the post), the referee can then give the foul instead of the advantage.

I think as long as the referee has not indicated to the players he has given advantage, he is within his right to go back and give the foul. However, if an attacker, though the advantage gets off a clean uncontested shot and misses of no fault other than his own, going back and giving the PK in that situation will likely have a very negative effect on game control (because you will put the defense in double jeopardy and given the attacking two terrific scoring chances).

What do you think?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
When an offense is committed by a defender inside the team’s own penalty area, the definition of Potential changes from “probability” and “dangerous attack” to a goal actually being scored by the fouled team immediately following the foul or at most within another play. The “within a play” is not a hard and fast rule, but a “rule of thumb” subject to the opinion of the referee. The objective is to reward the attackers for scoring a goal despite the offense and not benefiting the defenders by replacing a sure goal with the roughly 70% probability of scoring a goal from a penalty kick.

Particularly when the offense involves violence, it becomes more important to stop play (and award the PK) than to increase the danger of further violence occurring. Even within the penalty area, the distance can still be greater (18 yards or more depending on the direction of the attack) or lesser (e.g., within the goal area) – in the former case, you might allow more play to occur before stopping for a penalty kick if a goal is not scored.

In short, if a goal is not scored right away, give the penalty kick.

In no case, however, is the advantage signal to be given for an offense inside the penalty area. The time is too short for you to divert your attention from the critical decision to be made. You are still applying the advantage concept but the terms of the advantage decision change and having to give a signal could detract from the accurate application of that decision.

Question:
What is the proper way to apply advantage as an Assistant Referee? Or is advantage generally to be applied only by the Center?

Do I signal the foul and allow the center to determine advantage? Or may I, as the AR, keep my flag, run with the play to see what develops, and if no advantage materializes in 2-3 seconds then raise my flag and call the previous foul?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
In general, the AR should flag only for fouls or misconduct that the referee cannot see. However, that does not give the AR the right or privilege or power to invoke the advantage clause; that is reserved for the referee. In addition, a late flag by the AR for a foul in which the AR him- or herself might have “invoked” the advantage earlier is problematic. In the unlikely case that it might need to be done, this is a matter to be discussed in the pregame conference.

Question:
The assistant signals an offside position against team A.

The central ref does not notice the signal. Meanwhile team B regains possession of the ball and on the counter attack they score. During all this time the AR still keeps his flag up. The central ref allows the goal, but before the restart he notices the AR’s flag and goes to him. The AR tells him about the offside position. The ref disallows the goal and comes back to award team B the indirect free kick due to the offside position signaled by the AR.

What should have been the correct decision? I have understood that there is no advantage at offsides, so the offside needs to be punished, right?

Myself, I would have allowed the goal, as I would have considered that the AR made a mistake keeping the flag up. The recommendation is that if the AR signals the offside position and the central ref does not see the signal, the AR must put down the flag when the defending team has gained clear possession of the ball. Right?

USSF answer (June 5, 2009):
The clear and uncontested answer is that the assistant referee (AR) should have lowered the flag as soon as the opposing team gained control of the ball. (See the Interpretation/Guidelines for Referees, Law 6, in the back of the Law book.) Allow the goal, slap the AR on the wrist for keeping the flag up unnecessarily and thus interfering with the game.

That said, there are some disturbing statements in your question that could confuse referees, assistant referees, players, coaches, and spectators.

1. Signal offside position?
The assistant referee (AR) should NEVER signal simply offside position. He or she should signal only a definite offside; this means that the player in question is in an offside position and is involved in play. The referee than makes the decision as to whether there truly is offside, or that the offside signaled by the AR will not be called. In other words, offside either is or is not. In all events, the AR must know for certain that a player in an offside position is involved in play before the AR lifts the flag.

2. Advantage:
The advantage clause can be invoked only on infringements of Law 12, not on infringements of other Laws. Those who say that advantage may be called on offside are confusing two meanings (or categories) of the same word. The first, “Advantage” as treated in Law 5, applies only to violations of Law 12: It means that the referee believes that the team that had committed the foul (or misconduct) would benefit from a stoppage and the team that had been fouled would lose a good opportunity to advance the ball. This is the only situation in which the the referee gives the advantage signal of upswept arms and states, “Advantage, play on.”

The second, a “silent” advantage, applies to any other violation of the Laws COMMITTED BY A PLAYER (offside, second-touch on restarts, encroachment under Law 14, interfering with the goalkeeper on a corner kick) for which the impact is so fleeting or the ball changes possession so quickly that stopping play would unnecessarily interfere with the flow of the match. Offenses for which “silent” advantage is applied would not be counted in determining persistent infringement. For all other violations of the Law not committed by a player (“foreign” ball or outside agent entering the field, lack of corner flags), no advantage of either sort would be appropriate and the referee would apply the concept of doubtful or trifling in deciding what to do.

A third situation that seems to afflict some referees is the wish to call “play on” and signal the advantage when there has been no foul, but simply some sort of contact that was not a foul. In cases like this, the referee should find something else to say other than “play on” and should definitely NOT give the advantage signal: “Go on, no foul”; “Nothing there”; or “I saw it, number 6 [or whatever number applies], and there was no foul.”

Question:
In the UEFA championship match, there was a situation where the referee applied advantage to a reckless foul (deserving of a caution) and allowed play to continue.  Over the course of the next several seconds, the advantage was fully realized but, in the end, the ball ended up in the hands of the opposing team’s goalkeeper.  At that time, the referee stopped play and showed a yellow card for the reckless foul.  Is this proper?  I thought you had to wait for the ball to leave the field before giving the card?  Was the restart correct?

USSF answer (June 2, 2009):
Several questions have come in regarding this incident, a few referring directly to the UEFA match and others raising the issue generally.  Although we have answered these questions individually, there has been some misunderstanding of what is truly at issue here.  Accordingly, we are using this latest question to offer some general advice for handling such situations.

Several referees felt that the referee, having decided not to stop play immediately for misconduct based on the application of the advantage concept, cannot thereafter stop play solely because the advantage, which lasted long enough to erase the foul, has ended. Our position is not only yes, he can do that, but we would ask in return, why not? The Law requires only that the card be given at the next stoppage of play and, per the Law, that can occur by the ball leaving the field (which is often the ONLY type of stoppage considered here) or by the referee stopping play. Why do referees stop play? Well, there are hundreds of reasons, including (see Advice to Referees) simply wanting to talk to a player as well as such more obvious things as injuries, weather, another foul, etc., or simply for the good of the game”!

We recommend for everyone’s reading the Interpretations/Guidelines (on p. 90 of the 2008/2009 Laws) regarding the referee missing the AR’s flag for severe misconduct and reiterated in the USSF Memorandum Supplement 2008:

Law 6
Both last year and again this year, the International Board has created an exception to the general rule that, if advantage is applied to misconduct, the appropriate card must be shown and the proper action taken (e.g., the player sent off) at the next stoppage; otherwise, the opportunity to card has been lost. The Interpretations provide that, if an AR signals for violent conduct but the signal is not seen until after play is restarted after the next stoppage, the referee may still display a red card and send the player off the field. If this should occur, the restart is based on the current stoppage of play rather than on the violent conduct that occurred previously.

USSF advises that:
- this exception is not limited to “violent conduct” in its official sense as a form of misconduct but applies as well to serious foul play (where violence or excessive force is involved) and other acts of misconduct,
- the AR must have signaled for the misconduct at the time it occurred and maintained the signal until it is seen by the referee, and
- if play is stopped solely in response to the signal by the AR, play is restarted with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area) but otherwise the restart is in accordance with the Law.

Referees are strongly urged to cover this type of situation in their pregame discussion and to make clear what sorts of misconduct are serious enough to warrant maintaining the AR’s signal past the next stoppage of play. If a player has received a second yellow card in the same match but was not at that time shown a red card and sent off, the referee remains able to correct the error at any time it is brought to his or her attention by a member of the officiating team.

This information from the Interpretations/Guidelines is not directly related to the question at hand and some will argue that it is also “not specifically authorized” in the Laws of the Game. However, there are many things we do that are “not specifically authorized” and fall under the words used in the Laws themselves, “If, in the opinion of the referee.” In this case the solution is indeed part and parcel of the Laws and it prepares the way for a more proactive role for the referee after applying the advantage. If the referee has to stop the game because no “natural” stoppage seems imminent, then he can do so. Referees are expected to do what is needed to meet the demands of the Spirit of the Game, to give the players a fair game. Waiting for a “natural” stoppage in this game would have left open a path for more infringements. Better to stop them now, before they occur, rather than wait and hope.

As we read it, the International Board was so concerned about violent conduct going unpunished that it carved out this exception to the general rule that a card not given at the next stoppage (natural or “unnatural”) is lost forever. With this in mind, why should the referee be prevented from implementing the same spirit by stopping play himself after the advantage has been realized and the opposing team (the one that committed the violent conduct in the first place!) now has control of the ball? This does not mean that the referee should in every case do as was done in this situation, stopping play without waiting for a “natural” stoppage. However, it does mean that the referee must keep his or her finger on the pulse of the game, applying, as we suggest in Advice 13.5, his or her feeling for the game in what FIFA calls “Fingerspitzengefühl” (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”). Only by exercising common sense can the referee do what is correct in such cases.

Question:
In a 3-on-2 situation, attacker A1 for Team A is fouled from behind at the 20 yard line, near the corner of the penalty area.

Before falling, he manages to play the ball ahead, just outside of the penalty area, to teammate A2, so the referee applies advantage, thinking that the teammate may be able to cross to an unmarked third attacker who is wide open in line with the far post. However, before A2 can cross, he too is fouled at the 6-yard line – just outside the penalty area.

So there are two possibilities for the CR: (1) make the decision that advantage never materialized and award a DFK at the 20-yard line, near the corner of the penalty area; or (2) decide that having a DFK at the six, just outside the penalty area, is more advantageous to the offense and thus have the DFK taken from there. The problem is that it is unclear which spot is better for the offense. If they have a skilled free kicker who plans to try to score directly off the DFK, they are better kicking from the 20. If they prefer to cross, and have some good players in the air, they may prefer to kick from the six.

In this scenario, would the referee be allowed to give the offense its choice of spots for the DFK? If not, should he use his judgement as to which spot is better based on his analysis of which spot is better for Team A based on their personnel? Also, could the CR (under “Law 18″) hesitate once the whistle has been blown and see if the attackers, by their actions, give him a clue as to where they would rather take the kick from?

USSF answer (May 30, 2009):
In brief: It’s the referee’s job to apply the Law correctly, not to decide which of several locations is better for the attackers. A1 was fouled, advantage was applied based on the ability of A1’s team to continue the attack credibly via A2 receiving the ball from A1. This occurred, advantage realized. Then A2 is fouled with no adequate basis for applying advantage, so there is the location of the restart.

You can find a lengthier explanation in the Advice to Referees, 2009/2010 edition, not yet published:

5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 12th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.

The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player’s team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.

The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the “advantage” is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again.  Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)

NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.

The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.

The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 — both the section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct .  Other offenses under the Laws of the Game (e. g., violating Law 15 on a throw-in, offside, “second touch” violations at a restart, etc.) are not subject to the application of advantage.  As with any other infringement of the Law (e. g., the lack of corner flags, a whistle blown by a spectator, the illegal entry onto the field of a spectator), these are subject to a determination by the referee that the infraction is doubtful (uncertain that it occurred) or trifling (the infringement occurred but had no importance for the course of play).  For example, if a ball comes onto the field of play from a nearby field, it is not necessary to stop play unless and until this “foreign object” actually interferes with play or causes any confusion for the players.  Deciding not to stop play in such a case is not based on applying advantage but of following the time-honored principle embodied prior to 1996 in International Board Decision 8 of Law 5 (dropped in 1997 but still considered a core value in the Laws of the Game — see the first paragraph of Advice 5.5, above).

Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing. As a practical matter, referees should generally avoid a decision to allow advantage for fouls which happen very early in the match, for fouls performed in front of the team areas, or for misconduct involving violence unless the chance for a goal is immediate.

A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is “calling the foul” and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.

Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong.

In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.

One way to determine when to invoke the advantage is to apply the Four Ps: Possession, Potential, Personnel, and Proximity. Possession means active and credible control by the player who was fouled or a teammate. Potential means the likelihood of continuing an immediate and dangerous attack on the opponents’ goal. Potential is evaluated by judging the Personnel involved (the number and skills of the attackers relative to the number and skills of the defenders within 2-3 seconds of the offense) and Proximity (the distance to the opponents’ goal; the less the distance, the greater the potential).

Question:
Is it right to conclude that if I call or indicate an advantage, I MUST (regardless of the result or outcome) punish the defense and/or reward a free kick to the offense, provided that the advantage is within reasonable time?

USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
No, you would not be correct to conclude this. You will find all you need on this matter in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 12th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.

The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player’s team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.

The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the “advantage” is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again.  Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)

NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.

The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.

The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 — both the section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct .  Other offenses under the Laws of the Game (e. g., violating Law 15 on a throw-in, offside, “second touch” violations at a restart, etc.) are not subject to the application of advantage.  As with any other infringement of the Law (e. g., the lack of corner flags, a whistle blown by a spectator, the illegal entry onto the field of a spectator), these are subject to a determination by the referee that the infraction is doubtful (uncertain that it occurred) or trifling (the infringement occurred but had no importance for the course of play).  For example, if a ball comes onto the field of play from a nearby field, it is not necessary to stop play unless and until this “foreign object” actually interferes with play or causes any confusion for the players.  Deciding not to stop play in such a case is not based on applying advantage but of following the time-honored principle embodied prior to 1996 in International Board Decision 8 of Law 5 (dropped in 1997 but still considered a core value in the Laws of the Game — see the first paragraph of Advice 5.5, above).

Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing. As a practical matter, referees should generally avoid a decision to allow advantage for fouls which happen very early in the match, for fouls performed in front of the team areas, or for misconduct involving violence unless the chance for a goal is immediate.

A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is “calling the foul” and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.

Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong. 

In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.

Question:
I’ve been seen more professional referees making a gesture (and probably saying something too) to indicate that while a player may have expected a call, the referee wants to say/indicate that it was “not a foul.”

The gesture is usually a pointing with an outstretched arm to the spot or person. Sometimes there seems to be a motion with the hand to perhaps indicate “get up” to the “non-fouled” player.
Occasionally a more emphatic “baseball-ump-safe” signal is used.

Since I’m seeing these on TV and not hearing what’s being said, I’d like to know what verbalization is suggested for “not a foul.” I’ve used “play on” in these instances especially with younger players, but know that phrase should more be reserved to indicate “advantage.” I’m aware that the upswept arms and “play on” or “advantage” should be only used to indicate the application of “advantage” relative to what would have been actually a foul. I’m looking for clarification on the best way to indicate a true “non foul” situation.

I also believe and have been instructed that “purists” would rather never say anything nor gesture for a “non-call.” But at many levels of the game, both teams may almost stop expecting a call that is not made, so it seems that the referee needs to somehow indicate to “keep playing; I’m not calling anything there!” And, it does seem that more referees are providing some sort of verbal and/or gesture.

What can you recommend for these situations?

USSF answer (March 30, 2009):
The referee should constantly interact with the players to let them know that he or she is in touch with the game and what is going on. This interaction can take the form of speaking, gesturing, always making the correct call or simply “being there” for all the action. (Position is almost everything in refereeing.) How this is accomplished is part of the referee’s personality. Some referees speak with the players all the time, praising them for sporting or good athletic play, or mildly admonishing them for borderline behavior. Some referees will use gestures such as you describe, asking the players to get up when it is clear they are not seriously injured or telling them that no foul has been committed.

When no foul has been committed, the referee should use every reasonable means to inform the players that there was nothing illegal there. This can range from saying “No foul” or “Go on!” or “Nothing there!” or, as you suggest, “Keep playing!” or something similar to get the message across. What a referee should NEVER do in this situation is make the mistake of suggesting that there is an advantage either by saying “Play on” or giving the upswept arms signal for the advantage. The referee who does this dilutes the importance of the advantage signal and confuses the players as to what is a foul (or misconduct) and what is fair play. That makes it harder for the rest of us in managing the match in the next game these teams play.

We are not sure who these “purists” are, who would not keep the players informed of the state of the game, but they do not belong in the refereeing corps.

Question:
If a goalkeeper is in possession of the ball with his hands and is fouled by means of “pushing” and the push sends him out of the penalty area (still holding the ball), but the keeper very quickly throws the ball up to midfield to a wide open attacker who can move towards goal,  can advantage be applied and play be allowed to continue under these circumstances?

Law 5 states: the referee is to allow play to continue when the team against which an offense has been committed will benefit from such an advantage.

Since there is no way you would ever call the deliberate handling infraction, wouldn’t requiring the goal keeper to put the ball to the ground for a free kick take away the advantage? And since Handling must be deliberate it could be argued that the keeper never INTENTIONALLY handled the ball as he was forced from the penalty area against his will.

USSF answer (March 21, 2009):
No, no matter how much the situation may invite it, the referee cannot invoke the advantage clause in this case. The original foul must be called and the opponent at least admonished for the infringement. Of course, if the force of the push was excessive — and if it actually resulted in the goalkeeper being moved a yard or so outside the penalty area, that would seem to be the only conclusion possible — the opponent would also be sent off for using excessive force. The reason for not invoking the advantage clause is that the referee would have to use it twice, first for the foul by the opponent and then again for the infringement by the goalkeeper, no matter that it was caused by the original foul. Call the original foul (and likely serious misconduct) and send off the opponent. Restart with a direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team from within the penalty area.

Question:
This month’s meeting of our local official’s association had us discussing the position paper found on [the USSF] website concerning advantage in the penalty area (04/11/08). We took the tips from the paper and it was beneficial information for all involved. The discussion then turned to advantage. Half of those in attendance believe that advantage ended with the shot attempt by the teammate that was passed the ball (i.e. video highlight Kansas City v. New England attached to position paper). The other half indicated that no advantage developed because the teammate missed the shot. That left us with the question; what constitutes ‘advantage’ and when is it realized or finished? We realize that this scenario that we are proposing is not exactly like the video in that the referee in the video never exhibited the ‘advantage’ signal. What we are asking is if the referee had moved his arms in an upward manner and shouted “advantage” and then the play continued exactly like the video in that the teammate received the pass and did not score. Is the advantage finished with the missed shot or can the referee then go to the penalty spot with the explanation that the advantage never occurred because the shot was missed? We have a group of officials that referee from the lowest levels of youth games all the way up to the collegiate level and the room was pretty evenly divided on when the advantage ended. We need your help.

USSF answer (March 7, 2009):
We believe you will find your answer at the bottom of this excerpt from the position paper:

The basic elements of the decision are straightforward:

- Advantage is a team concept and thus the referee must be aware not only of the fouled player’s ability to continue his or her attack but also of the ability of any of the player’s teammates to continue the attack themselves.
- Advantage has been applied when the decision is made, not when the advantage signal is given. The signal itself may often be delayed for 2-3 seconds while the referee evaluates the advantage situation to determine if it will continue.
- Where it does not continue, the Laws of the Game provide for the referee to stop play for the original foul.
- If the original foul involved violence, the referee is advised not to apply advantage unless there is an immediate chance of scoring a goal.
Inside the penalty area, the competitive tension is much greater and the referee is called upon to make quicker decisions. The time during which the referee looks for advantage to continue becomes defined by the probability of scoring a goal directly following the foul or from the subsequent play.

While the decision lies solely in the opinion of the referee on the particular game, the thrust of the excerpt above is that giving the advantage within the penalty area means there is some definite reason to expect a goal will be scored immediately (within a play or, at most, two) if play is allowed to continue.  If a shot is taken — after the foul — by the player who was fouled or by a teammate, and a goal was not scored, then in most cases the advantage has not been realized and the original foul must be penalized.  That is why the referee must make the initial decision to invoke the advantage clause very carefully.