Manchester City’s opening goal against Arsenal today caused
controversy for the fact that City were deemed to have had their cake and eaten
it. Should they have had a free kick after advantage had been played? If the
game wants to see attacking play rewarded then they should.
I like Niall Quinn. I’ve never met the man in person but
anyone that has always seems to have good words to say about him, for the
dignified role that he held at Sunderland and the charitable work that he has
been involved in. Whenever I’ve seen and heard him on screen he seems like a thoroughly
decent bloke. However watching Arsenal’s game against Manchester City today I
found myself disagreeing with him at several points. Before this gets personal
however, the particular gripes I had are things that I don’t think stands him
out from the pack, certainly not when I compare it with what I’ve heard from fans
at games around me shout or what I’ve heard from other esteemed commentators
when it comes to playing ‘advantage’.
“Advantage!” It’s a common cry at games, shouted as lustily as a tennis umpire when a foul has been committed. “Why did they bring play back?! They were away!” many times I’ve heard this, those watching the game annoyed that a particularly promising break has been brought back by the official and restarted with a dead ball situation, the swift attack stifled.
Advantage is the term given to the period of play in the immediate aftermath of an indiscretion that the referee has deemed to be a foul but where the ball has broken kindly for the team that has been sinned against, to where they may gain more from the game being in play than they might from the free kick that would have been given. It’s designed to keep the game flowing, to eliminate the ability of teams to prosper from a spoiling and cynical tackle, made by an opponent keen to stop and slow down events. Its use is something to be embraced and encouraged.
It has clearly been a cultural change for match officials. When a foul is committed it’s in their nature to blow their whistle and signal a free kick. Match makers and those that watch the game have been keen for them to apply the rules of advantage and see attacking play encouraged as a result. It’s a tight judgment, holding fire for a second or two in the immediate aftermath of a foul to see what can develop. It’s impossible to always get right, who can ever know what might or might not have happened, but the law allows them to let play continue and then call it back for a free kick if a team has been unable to prosper in those next few moments.
The controversy starts however when people argue about when advantage stops. For example, if player A is taken down through a foul and yet the ball runs to his team mate, player B, to crash a shot against a post, does the referee call it back because they didn’t score? Of course not, the advantage that the team was given was that player B got the ball and then play continued. If the referee chooses to go back and book the player that committed the foul on player A then that’s their prerogative but the advantage has been played, the shot was taken. Crucially Player B’s action was unimpeded by the offence that occurred on player A.
On the flip side however, what if we rewind and player A, despite being fouled was still able to stumble on, even though they had been knocked off balance through a foul. Disorientated they still continue to try and go forward. Seeing that the player is still on their feet, albeit stumbling and that the attack is still going on, the official decides not to call for the free kick and see if the team can score; advantage is being played. After an awkward few more steps player A attempts a shot, but off balance they fall in the action and the shot is miss-hit out for a goal kick. So, has advantage now been played? Player A had their shot after all. In this instance however, the referee very much should bring the game back and award the free kick for the original foul. Why? Because the defending player’s foul has been rewarded otherwise. Player A was knocked off balance illegally, to where only an incredible or very lucky turn of events would have led to them scoring. The player was fouled, caused to stumble to where they would never be able to hit the ball sweetly. Was the fact that they got to play on such an advantage?
As ever it’s clearly a somewhat grey area but surely common sense in the scenario I’ve outlined above says that while the referee tried to see how the game might continue, hitting a shot you have little to no control over when you are falling over, having been barged in the back does not constitute that ‘you have had your advantage’.
This was very much the situation that occurred today during the game at the Emirates and after which I found myself in disagreement to Mr Quinn. In the build up to the first Manchester City goal, Javi Garcia was fouled, clearly tripped. As a result he faltered but was able to keep control of the ball and despite being half on the floor, having had his legs taken he attempted to pass to the overlapping City player. Seeing that Garcia had been able to retain control of the ball despite the foul, referee Mike Dean allowed play to continue (advantage!). The ball did not reach its intended recipient, an Arsenal player intercepted it and that’s when the match official blew his whistle and awarded the free kick.
The home crowd was apoplectic; Garcia had been given his advantage! He had passed the ball but had screwed it up! Quinn disagreed with the referee too, the advantage had been played, none had come and now the Champions should be faced with Arsenal breaking rather than be rewarded with an attacking set piece. Yet, what advantage did Garcia really have? He was half on the floor as a result of the foul when he played the ball and it’s fairly safe to assume that this was the cause of the poor ball he then played which did not reach its intended recipient. Hence why Mike Dean I imagine called play back.
From the subsequent free kick, Arsenal switched off, brains were not focussed and their marking slack, that’s how James Milner was able to receive the ball and score. They were 1-0 down because the referee applied the laws of the game as they should be intended while they forgot their duty of defending adequately. That’s why they went a goal down not through the fault of the official.
Quinn, like the Arsenal fans and indeed I’m sure many watching thought that Garcia had received his chance though, it was either a free kick or he had the opportunity to play the ball; not both. But this attitude is another of the other reasons why players are so keen to go to ground when they feel contact. If you try to struggle on after being barged, pushed, pulled or clipped then the referee tries to play advantage and yet what degree of an ‘advantage’ can you realistically gain if you have been buffeted and you barely stay on your feet let alone keep your balance? Easier to go down than risk the views espoused by those fans in the Emirates and those commentating on Sky coming into play, whereby any sort of shot, pass, cross, dribble in the immediate aftermath of a foul no matter how impeded, counts as your one chance at gaining advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment